0.563 0.625 0.500
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.625
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.250 0.500 0.375
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - HT
Franciscan Way Franciscan Way Broadway St Broadway St
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Franciscan Way & Broadway St
City: King City Project ID:
Control: 1-Way Stop(NB) Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 7
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 21-090054-003
7/13/2021
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.500 0.500 0.250 0.250
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.250
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.250
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Bikes
Franciscan Way Franciscan Way Broadway St Broadway St
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement Count
Location: Franciscan Way & Broadway St Project ID:
City: King City Date:
NS/EW Streets:
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
7:15 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
7:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 7
8:15 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 6 2 2 1 2 5 1 0 19
APPROACH %'s : 75.00% 25.00% 66.67% 33.33% 28.57% 71.43% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:30 AM 38 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 2 1 2 1 1 5 0 0 12
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 3 5 0 3 1 0 12
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6
4:30 PM 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6
4:45 PM 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 7
5:00 PM 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 6
5:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 3 7 8 13 10 3 2 1 47
APPROACH %'s : 30.00% 70.00% 38.10% 61.90% 76.92% 23.08% 66.67% 33.33% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 287 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 3 4 5 10 0 1 1 25
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.375 0.333 0.250 0.417 0.250 0.250 21-090054-003
7/13/2021
0.893 0.500 0.450 0.417 0.250
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.429 0.375
PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
0.375 0.250
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Franciscan Way Franciscan Way Broadway St Broadway St
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 21-090054-004 Day:
City: King City Date:
AM 1 213 66 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 8 172 138 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 0 0 0
0 207 0 25
0 4 0 4
0 0 0 0 0 251 0 128
1 0 3 0 TEV 714 0 1292 0 0 0 0
2 0 7 0 PHF 0.82 0.89
8 0 12 0
0 0 0 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 10 261 219 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 4 114 148 AM
0 NONE
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM 471
San Antonio Dr & Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
San Antonio Dr Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 7/13/2021
PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM 140 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE
364 0 216
Cars (AM) 435 HT (AM)
Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd
9 0 22
CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Cars (PM) HT (PM)
0 349
NORTHBOUND
San Antonio Dr
Cars (NOON) HT (NOON)
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
3 0
0 1
00 000
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 30 110 3
0 0
0 5
0 0
021
015
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
1 5
0 0
050
078
207
4 12 246
7 3
8170137
10260214
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
25 4
7 123
2 1
120866
4107140
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: San Antonio Dr & Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd City: King City Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 16 26 0 12 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 5 0 146
7:15 AM 0 27 29 0 9 49 1 0 0 0 3 0 45 2 5 0 170
7:30 AM 2 18 37 0 11 59 0 0 0 1 1 0 23 0 6 0 158
7:45 AM 1 40 48 0 30 56 0 0 1 0 4 0 28 2 7 0 217
8:00 AM 1 29 34 0 16 49 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 7 0 169
8:15 AM 3 19 39 0 9 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 1 10 0 148
8:30 AM 2 15 24 0 14 36 0 0 0 1 1 0 13 0 8 0 114
8:45 AM 5 25 39 0 18 35 1 0 0 1 2 0 24 2 6 0 158
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 15 189 276 0 119 375 2 0 1 4 11 0 227 7 54 0 1280 APPROACH %'s : 3.13% 39.38% 57.50% 0.00% 23.99% 75.60% 0.40% 0.00% 6.25% 25.00% 68.75% 0.00% 78.82% 2.43% 18.75% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 114 148 0 66 213 1 0 1 2 8 0 128 4 25 0 714 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.713 0.771 0.000 0.550 0.903 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.711 0.500 0.893 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 3 75 52 0 36 54 1 0 0 3 5 0 59 3 45 0 336
4:15 PM 2 67 58 0 37 36 1 0 0 1 2 0 61 2 45 0 312
4:30 PM 1 77 56 0 36 40 1 0 1 2 3 0 62 0 56 0 335
4:45 PM 5 59 45 0 30 39 2 0 0 2 3 0 55 2 42 0 284
5:00 PM 2 58 60 0 35 57 4 0 2 2 4 0 73 0 64 0 361
5:15 PM 1 49 42 0 42 55 0 0 0 0 1 0 58 1 45 0 294
5:30 PM 1 78 42 0 31 28 1 0 0 3 1 0 61 3 37 0 286
5:45 PM 5 39 39 0 32 33 3 0 0 1 3 0 50 2 39 0 246
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 20 502 394 0 279 342 13 0 3 14 22 0 479 13 373 0 2454 APPROACH %'s : 2.18% 54.80% 43.01% 0.00% 44.01% 53.94% 2.05% 0.00% 7.69% 35.90% 56.41% 0.00% 55.38% 1.50% 43.12% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 10 261 219 0 138 172 8 0 3 7 12 0 251 4 207 0 1292 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.847 0.913 0.000 0.932 0.754 0.500 0.000 0.375 0.875 0.750 0.000 0.860 0.500 0.809 0.000 21-090054-004
7/13/2021
Data - Total
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.823 0.747 0.814 0.550 0.755
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.895 0.914 0.828 0.688 0.843
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: San Antonio Dr & Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd City: King City Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 16 23 0 11 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 5 0 141
7:15 AM 0 26 27 0 9 48 1 0 0 0 2 0 43 2 5 0 163
7:30 AM 2 18 33 0 11 58 0 0 0 1 1 0 23 0 6 0 153
7:45 AM 1 36 48 0 30 54 0 0 1 0 4 0 28 2 7 0 211
8:00 AM 1 27 32 0 16 48 0 0 0 1 0 0 29 0 7 0 161
8:15 AM 3 19 39 0 8 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 1 10 0 146
8:30 AM 2 14 23 0 12 34 0 0 0 1 1 0 13 0 6 0 106
8:45 AM 5 23 39 0 18 33 1 0 0 1 2 0 23 2 5 0 152
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 15 179 264 0 115 364 2 0 1 4 10 0 221 7 51 0 1233 APPROACH %'s : 3.28% 39.08% 57.64% 0.00% 23.91% 75.68% 0.42% 0.00% 6.67% 26.67% 66.67% 0.00% 79.21% 2.51% 18.28% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 107 140 0 66 208 1 0 1 2 7 0 123 4 25 0 688 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.743 0.729 0.000 0.550 0.897 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.438 0.000 0.715 0.500 0.893 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 3 74 52 0 36 54 1 0 0 3 5 0 58 3 45 0 334
4:15 PM 2 67 58 0 37 35 1 0 0 1 2 0 59 2 45 0 309
4:30 PM 1 77 54 0 35 39 1 0 1 2 3 0 60 0 56 0 329
4:45 PM 5 58 43 0 30 39 2 0 0 2 3 0 55 2 42 0 281
5:00 PM 2 58 59 0 35 57 4 0 2 2 4 0 72 0 64 0 359
5:15 PM 1 49 42 0 42 55 0 0 0 0 1 0 57 1 45 0 293
5:30 PM 1 78 42 0 31 27 1 0 0 3 1 0 61 3 37 0 285
5:45 PM 5 38 36 0 32 33 3 0 0 1 3 0 50 2 39 0 242
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 20 499 386 0 278 339 13 0 3 14 22 0 472 13 373 0 2432 APPROACH %'s : 2.21% 55.14% 42.65% 0.00% 44.13% 53.81% 2.06% 0.00% 7.69% 35.90% 56.41% 0.00% 55.01% 1.52% 43.47% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 10 260 214 0 137 170 8 0 3 7 12 0 246 4 207 0 1278 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.844 0.907 0.000 0.926 0.746 0.500 0.000 0.375 0.875 0.750 0.000 0.854 0.500 0.809 0.000 21-090054-004
7/13/2021
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.890 0.917 0.820 0.688 0.840
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.815
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.738 0.818 0.500 0.760
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Cars
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: San Antonio Dr & Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd City: King City Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
7:15 AM 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 7
7:30 AM 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
7:45 AM 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
8:00 AM 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 8
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8:30 AM 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8
8:45 AM 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 10 12 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 0 47
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 45.45% 54.55% 0.00% 26.67% 73.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 7 8 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 26
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.438 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.417 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6
4:45 PM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 3 8 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 22
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 27.27% 72.73% 0.00% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 14
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.625 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.000 0.000 21-090054-004
7/13/2021
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.583 0.500 0.375 0.625
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.813
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.938 0.625 0.250 0.417
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - HT
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: San Antonio Dr & Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd City: King City Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :
PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 6
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21-090054-004
7/13/2021
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Bikes
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement Count
Location: San Antonio Dr & Broadway St/San Lorenzo Park Rd Project ID:
City: King City Date:
NS/EW Streets:
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 8
APPROACH %'s : 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 100.00% 25.00% 75.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 37 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 6
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.375
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
4:15 PM 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 8
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 2 2 3 0 0 4 1 12
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 3 5 3 3 3 0 5 1 23
APPROACH %'s : 37.50% 62.50% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0.00% 83.33% 16.67% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 287 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 9
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.375 0.250
21-090054-004
7/13/2021
0.281 0.300 0.250
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.750 0.500
PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
0.500
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr Broadway St/San Lorenzo
Park Rd
Broadway St/San Lorenzo
Park Rd
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 21-090054-005 Day:
City: King City Date:
AM 234 115 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 266 155 0 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 0 0 0
0 45 0 18
0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 32 0 30
0 0 0 0 TEV 729 0 1023 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 PHF 0.91 0.94
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 1 72 452 0 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 81 248 0 AM
0 NONE
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 497
San Antonio Dr & SR 101 NB Ramps
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
San Antonio Dr Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 7/13/2021
PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM 266 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
COUNT PERIODS
NONE
0 0 0
Cars (AM) 188 HT (AM)
SR 101 NB Ramps
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
SR 101 NB Ramps
318 0 338
CONTROL
1-Way Stop(WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Cars (PM) HT (PM)
0 145
NORTHBOUND
San Antonio Dr
Cars (NOON) HT (NOON)
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
1 0
3 1
0 1
00 000
0 4
0 0
9 0
0 00 000 0
1 0
0 2
0 0
520
150
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
3 1
0 0
0 0
920
1120
44 0
0 30
0 0
2611530
714470
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
15 2
0 30
0 0
2251130
802360
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: San Antonio Dr & SR 101 NB Ramps
City: King City Project ID:
Control: 1-Way Stop(WB) Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 22 42 0 0 0 29 57 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 160
7:15 AM 22 52 0 0 0 39 58 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 4 0 184
7:30 AM 28 54 0 0 0 22 61 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 0 177
7:45 AM 15 85 0 0 0 29 59 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 0 200
8:00 AM 16 57 0 0 0 25 56 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 5 0 168
8:15 AM 20 58 0 0 0 23 44 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 156
8:30 AM 12 38 0 0 0 8 41 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 3 0 110
8:45 AM 8 66 0 0 0 21 41 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 146
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 143 452 0 0 0 196 417 0 0 0 0 0 59 4 30 0 1301 APPROACH %'s : 24.03% 75.97% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 31.97% 68.03% 0.00% 63.44% 4.30% 32.26% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 81 248 0 0 0 115 234 0 0 0 0 0 30 3 18 0 729 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.723 0.729 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.737 0.959 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.250 0.900 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 16 112 0 0 0 35 85 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 14 0 272
4:15 PM 10 118 0 0 0 37 60 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 10 0 243
4:30 PM 22 121 0 0 0 41 65 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 12 0 271
4:45 PM 24 101 0 1 0 42 56 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 0 237
5:00 PM 14 109 0 0 0 46 88 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 0 270
5:15 PM 18 87 0 0 0 46 66 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 228
5:30 PM 14 107 0 0 0 30 63 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 0 228
5:45 PM 12 76 0 0 0 31 54 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 9 0 191
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 130 831 0 1 0 308 537 0 0 0 0 0 49 1 83 0 1940 APPROACH %'s : 13.51% 86.38% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 36.45% 63.55% 0.00% 36.84% 0.75% 62.41% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 72 452 0 1 0 155 266 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 45 0 1023 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.750 0.934 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.923 0.782 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.800 0.000 0.804 0.000 21-090054-005
7/13/2021
Data - Total
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr SR 101 NB Ramps SR 101 NB Ramps AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.911 0.823 0.899 0.911
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
0.940 0.918 0.877 0.802
National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: San Antonio Dr & SR 101 NB Ramps
City: King City Project ID:
Control: 1-Way Stop(WB) Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 21 39 0 0 0 29 56 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 155
7:15 AM 21 50 0 0 0 37 56 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 0 175
7:30 AM 28 50 0 0 0 22 60 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 0 172
7:45 AM 15 82 0 0 0 29 57 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 0 194
8:00 AM 16 54 0 0 0 25 52 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 4 0 160
8:15 AM 20 58 0 0 0 23 43 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 155
8:30 AM 12 36 0 0 0 8 39 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 3 0 106
8:45 AM 8 65 0 0 0 21 38 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 141
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 141 434 0 0 0 194 401 0 0 0 0 0 59 3 26 0 1258 APPROACH %'s : 24.52% 75.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 32.61% 67.39% 0.00% 67.05% 3.41% 29.55% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 80 236 0 0 0 113 225 0 0 0 0 0 30 2 15 0 701 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.714 0.720 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.764 0.938 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.833 0.250 0.938 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 15 111 0 0 0 34 85 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 14 0 269
4:15 PM 10 118 0 0 0 36 58 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 0 239
4:30 PM 22 119 0 0 0 41 62 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 12 0 265
4:45 PM 24 99 0 1 0 42 56 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 234
5:00 PM 11 108 0 0 0 46 87 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 0 265
5:15 PM 18 87 0 0 0 46 65 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 227
5:30 PM 14 107 0 0 0 30 62 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 0 227
5:45 PM 12 74 0 0 0 31 54 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 7 0 186
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 126 823 0 1 0 306 529 0 0 0 0 0 46 1 80 0 1912 APPROACH %'s : 13.26% 86.63% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 36.65% 63.35% 0.00% 36.22% 0.79% 62.99% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 71 447 0 1 0 153 261 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 44 0 1007 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.740 0.939 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.911 0.768 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.786 0.000 21-090054-005
7/13/2021
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
0.936 0.920 0.870 0.771
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.903
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.814 0.909 0.904
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Cars
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr SR 101 NB Ramps SR 101 NB Ramps National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: San Antonio Dr & SR 101 NB Ramps
City: King City Project ID:
Control: 1-Way Stop(WB) Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
7:15 AM 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9
7:30 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
7:45 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6
8:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 2 18 0 0 0 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 43
APPROACH %'s : 10.00% 90.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 88.89% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 80.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 12 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 28
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.563 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.750 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
4:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
4:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
5:00 PM 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 4 8 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 28
APPROACH %'s : 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 80.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 5 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 16
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.625 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.250 0.000 21-090054-005
7/13/2021
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
0.667 0.750 0.583 0.750
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.778
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.813 0.688 0.500
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - HT
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr SR 101 NB Ramps SR 101 NB Ramps National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: San Antonio Dr & SR 101 NB Ramps
City: King City Project ID:
Control: 1-Way Stop(WB) Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPROACH %'s :
PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%
PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 21-090054-005
7/13/2021
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Bikes
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr SR 101 NB Ramps SR 101 NB Ramps National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning
Movement Count
Location: San Antonio Dr & SR 101 NB Ramps Project ID:
City: King City Date:
NS/EW Streets:
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
APPROACH %'s : 25.00% 75.00%
PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 37 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.375
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 5
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 18
EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 6 13 20 2 41
APPROACH %'s : 31.58% 68.42% 90.91% 9.09%
PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 286 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 4 9 1 1 15
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.333 0.450 0.250 0.250
21-090054-005
7/13/2021
0.750 0.650 0.250
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
0.500
PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
0.500
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
San Antonio Dr San Antonio Dr SR 101 NB Ramps SR 101 NB Ramps
Musical Department
2015 FLOW
FFA
Cafeleria
Denny’s
7101 rat
King City
Shpp
inn Near
r Liggett
9 King City Union
School District
9 9
Kings smog station Qkrkc Farrell Ian R
Monterey CountyQ
Sheriff's Department V
\
\
(A
%
cP
J*
Castro s Surf n
Turf Taco Shop
Takeout , N^A
4*
•*'••"i
tp . d> * Days'Jnn by®
Wyndham Kinta City T
\
Raymundo s Auto Sales
Used car dealer
9 King City High School©
t0Lps
0Alci> o b y T' M o b i I e
^‘V Yc^^s'°,e
Castro’s Bakery & DM/--.
Takeout
W . side Inn
^9^
/ /j,2
Silver Sad$
Radio OelRey y7'pChevron
_,..9<9 Qu-.
~
IP -*
- *rt
7 7Ele?eW
Takeout -. Del
M%&
Mee Memorial QI
Healthcare System
hospital king cityW
9”
Mee Memorial Hospital
- George L Mee.„
"x. QDollar Tree
Dollar store
8<29
405.8'v
Safeway O
Takeout - Delivery y
K? -tO
ty Mart5 Q
Musical Department
2040 FLOW
FFA
Cafeleria
'ey
Takeoul
6 7101 Tat
Castro’s Surf n
Turf Taco Shop
Takeout >
King City Union
School District
9 9
Kings smog station
Farrell Ian R
iP*
It sQkrkc
Monterey County0
Sheriff's Department V
Inn Near Radio Del
r Liggett (
9 °?16
<S^
X
«•
Reside
ftp.
-
Raymundo s Auto Sales
Used car dealer
9 4*
Safeway Q
Takeout - Delivery V
io by T'Mobile
> 7 11
Castro s Baker, V
Takeout --
King City High School^
*\nn
'v!
S,\yer Satft
<9
\
\
\
(A%
A
CP
tp —I'tTl
S\
1 Days'Jnn by(*)
Wyndham King City v
\
Mee Memorial djl
Healthcare System
hospital king cityw _9-
Mee Memorial Hospital
- George L Mee...
0 Dollar Tree
y Dollar store
S0,»
3W.34
I King City
Shpp
r y'*'^Chevron
< Q 9penny’s
i
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 399 542
1.16 1.13 In 1.16 1.13 Out
240 105 0 Future Vol < Base Vol 277 121 0
322 139
Out 1.13 0 115 1.00 In Out 1.13 0 118 1.00 In
0 0 0 0
In 1.00 0 25 1.00 Out In 1.00 0 22 1.00 Out
0 0
Target Calc'ed %
45 365 0 45 425 0 Factor Factor Diff
1.10 1.15 Out 1.10 1.15 In SB In 1.16 1.16 0%
Out In 143 470 WB In 1.00 1.00 0%
NB In 1.15 1.15 0%
EB In 1.00 1.00 0%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.13 1.13 0% N/S Road FRANCISCAN Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.00 1.00 0% E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period AM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.10 1.10 0% WB Out 1.13 1.13 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 1 CUMULATIVE AM BROADWAY CIR_ US 101 NB.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 576 622
1.16 1.13 In 1.16 1.13 Out
350 145 0 399 177 0
463 130
Out 1.13 0 115 1.00 In Out 1.13 0 115 1.00 In
0 0 0 0
In 1.00 0 15 1.00 Out In 1.00 0 15 1.00 Out
0 0
Target Calc'ed %
60 435 0 65 506 0 Factor Factor Diff
1.20 1.15 Out 1.20 1.15 In SB In 1.16 1.16 0%
Out In 192 571 WB In 1.00 1.00 0%
NB In 1.15 1.15 0%
EB In 1.00 1.00 0%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.13 1.13 0% N/S Road FRANCISCAN Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.00 1.00 0% E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period PM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.20 1.20 0% WB Out 1.13 1.13 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 1 CUMULATIVE PM BROADWAY CIR_ US 101 NB.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 463 255
1.07 1.04 In 1.10 1.04 Out
1 175 245 1 189 273
26 328
Out 1.00 0 100 1.14 In Out 1.00 0 107 1.17 In
5 15 5 15
In 1.00 5 165 1.18 Out In 1.03 5 206 1.18 Out
10 684
Target Calc'ed %
10 145 330 10 148 406 Factor Factor Diff
1.16 1.13 Out 1.16 1.16 In SB In 1.07 1.10 3%
Out In 400 564 WB In 1.14 1.17 3%
NB In 1.13 1.16 3%
EB In 1.00 1.03 3%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.04 1.04 0% N/S Road SAN ANTONIO Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.18 1.18 0% E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period AM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.16 1.16 0% WB Out 1.00 1.00 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 02 CUMULATIVE AM BROADWAY_SAN ANTONIO.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 350 464
1.07 1.04 In 1.08 1.04 Out
5 160 160 Future Vol < Base Vol 4 170 176
30 626
Out 1.00 1 210 1.14 In Out 1.00 1 221 1.15 In
15 15 15 15
In 1.00 15 320 1.18 Out In 1.01 15 389 1.18 Out
31 549
Target Calc'ed %
10 235 290 10 242 357 Factor Factor Diff
1.16 1.13 Out 1.16 1.14 In SB In 1.07 1.08 1%
Out In 574 609 WB In 1.14 1.15 1%
NB In 1.13 1.14 1%
EB In 1.00 1.01 1%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.04 1.04 0% N/S Road SAN ANTONIO Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.18 1.18 0% E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period PM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.16 1.16 0% WB Out 1.00 1.00 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 02 CUMULATIVE PM BROADWAY_SAN ANTONIO.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 0 0
1.00 1.00 In 1.00 1.00 Out
0 0 0 Future Vol < Base Vol 0 0 0
331 369
Out 1.14 0 0 1.15 In Out 1.14 0 0 1.15 In
485 270 593 311
In 1.18 65 50 1.23 Out In 1.18 57 58 1.23 Out
650 640
Target Calc'ed %
20 0 35 19 0 47 Factor Factor Diff
1.00 1.20 Out 1.00 1.20 In SB In 1.00 1.00 0%
Out In 115 66 WB In 1.15 1.15 0%
NB In 1.20 1.20 0%
EB In 1.18 1.18 0%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.00 1.00 0% N/S Road FRANCISCAN Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.23 1.23 0% E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period AM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.00 1.00 0% WB Out 1.14 1.14 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 5 CUMULATIVE AM BROADWAY_ FRANCISCAN.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 0 0
1.00 1.00 In 1.00 1.00 Out
0 0 0 Future Vol < Base Vol 0 0 0
678 678
Out 1.14 0 0 1.15 In Out 1.14 0 0 1.15 In
435 495 534 577
In 1.18 80 95 1.23 Out In 1.18 73 102 1.23 Out
608 609
Target Calc'ed %
100 0 60 101 0 75 Factor Factor Diff
1.00 1.10 Out 1.00 1.10 In SB In 1.00 1.00 0%
Out In 175 176 WB In 1.15 1.15 0%
NB In 1.10 1.10 0%
EB In 1.18 1.18 0%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.00 1.00 0% N/S Road FRANCISCAN Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.23 1.23 0% E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period PM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.00 1.00 0% WB Out 1.14 1.14 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 5 CUMULATIVE PM BROADWAY_ FRANCISCAN.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 0 0
1.00 1.00 In 1.01 1.00 Out
0 0 0 0 0 0
500 628
Out 1.15 0 0 1.13 In Out 1.15 0 0 1.14 In
390 390 471 415
In 1.23 35 160 1.32 Out In 1.24 58 213 1.32 Out
529 660
Target Calc'ed %
45 0 110 85 0 189 Factor Factor Diff
1.39 1.75 Out 1.39 1.77 In SB In 1.00 1.01 1%
Out In 271 274 WB In 1.13 1.14 1%
NB In 1.75 1.77 1%
EB In 1.23 1.24 1%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.00 1.00 0% N/S Road CANAL Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.32 1.32 0%
E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period AM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.39 1.39 0% WB Out 1.15 1.15 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 6 CUMULATIVE AM BROADWAY_ CANAL.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 0 0
1.00 1.00 In 1.00 1.00 Out
0 0 0 0 0 0
690 848
Out 1.15 0 0 1.13 In Out 1.15 0 0 1.13 In
535 545 629 582
In 1.23 70 205 1.32 Out In 1.23 116 266 1.32 Out
745 977
Target Calc'ed %
55 0 205 108 0 348 Factor Factor Diff
1.39 1.75 Out 1.39 1.75 In SB In 1.00 1.00 0%
Out In 382 456 WB In 1.13 1.13 0%
NB In 1.75 1.75 0%
EB In 1.23 1.23 0%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.00 1.00 0% N/S Road CANAL Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.32 1.32 0%
E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period PM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.39 1.39 0% WB Out 1.15 1.15 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 6 CUMULATIVE PM BROADWAY_ CANAL.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 303 302
1.10 1.08 In 1.10 1.08 Out
180 55 40 Future Vol < Base Vol 177 73 53
571 435
Out 1.13 160 40 1.28 In Out 1.13 180 53 1.28 In
285 290 405 365
In 1.32 25 10 1.38 Out In 1.32 36 17 1.38 Out
621 490
Target Calc'ed %
35 80 30 29 69 33 Factor Factor Diff
1.40 0.90 Out 1.40 0.90 In SB In 1.10 1.10 0%
Out In 126 131 WB In 1.28 1.28 0%
NB In 0.90 0.90 0%
EB In 1.32 1.32 0%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.08 1.08 0% N/S Road MILDRED Future Year 2040 EB Out 1.38 1.38 0%
E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period AM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.40 1.40 0% WB Out 1.13 1.13 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 72 CUMULATIVE AM BROADWAY_ MILDRED.xls
Intersection Turning Movement Projections per NCHRP 255 (Furness Method) In Out 307 265
1.10 1.08 In 1.10 1.08 Out
165 55 60 Future Vol < Base Vol 146 77 85
780 721
Out 1.13 145 45 1.28 In Out 1.13 151 66 1.28 In
505 500 703 616
In 1.32 25 20 1.38 Out In 1.32 34 39 1.38 Out
888 821
Target Calc'ed %
25 55 30 18 47 34 Factor Factor Diff
1.50 0.90 Out 1.50 0.90 In SB In 1.10 1.10 0%
Out In 150 99 WB In 1.28 1.28 0%
NB In 0.90 0.90 0%
EB In 1.32 1.32 0%
Project KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Base Year 2017 NB Out 1.08 1.08 0% N/S Road MILDRED Future Year 40 EB Out 1.38 1.38 0%
E/W Road BROADWAY Time Period PM Avg Last 2 Iterations? : N SB Out 1.50 1.50 0% WB Out 1.13 1.13 0%
Future Year
Volumes
Base Year
Volumes
10/1/2021 7 CUMULATIVE PM BROADWAY_ MILDRED.xls
HCM 6th TWSC AM EXISTING
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 555 0 0 290
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 555 0 0 290
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 740 0 0 387
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1127 740 0 0 740 0
Stage 1 740 -----
Stage 2 387 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 226 417 - - 867 -
Stage 1 472 -----
Stage 2 686 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 226 417 - - 867 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 353 -----
Stage 1 472 -----
Stage 2 686 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 867 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM EXISTING
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 555 0 0 290
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 555 0 0 290
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 740 0 0 387
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1127 740 0 0 740 0
Stage 1 740 -----
Stage 2 387 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 226 417 - - 867 -
Stage 1 472 -----
Stage 2 686 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 226 417 - - 867 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 353 -----
Stage 1 472 -----
Stage 2 686 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 867 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM EXISTING
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 35 485 65 50 270
Future Vol, veh/h 20 35 485 65 50 270
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 50 0 - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 27 47 647 87 67 360
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1185 691 0 0 734 0
Stage 1 691 -----
Stage 2 494 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 209 445 - - 871 -
Stage 1 497 -----
Stage 2 613 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 193 445 - - 871 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 329 -----
Stage 1 497 -----
Stage 2 566 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 0 1.5
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 329 445 871 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.081 0.105 0.077 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.9 14 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.3 0.2 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM EXISTING
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.8
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 45 110 390 35 160 390
Future Vol, veh/h 45 110 390 35 160 390
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 35 0 - - 60 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 60 147 520 47 213 520
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1490 544 0 0 567 0
Stage 1 544 -----
Stage 2 946 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 136 539 - - 1005 -
Stage 1 582 -----
Stage 2 377 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 107 539 - - 1005 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 222 -----
Stage 1 582 -----
Stage 2 297 -----
Approach NB NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 17.9 0 2.8
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NER NBLn1 NBLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 222 539 1005 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.27 0.272 0.212 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 27.1 14.2 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 1.1 0.8 -
HCM 6th AWSC AM EXISTING
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 49.4
Intersection LOS E
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 80 30 40 55 180 160 285 25 10 290 40 Future Vol, veh/h 35 80 30 40 55 180 160 285 25 10 290 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 47 107 40 53 73 240 213 380 33 13 387 53
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach NB SB NE SW
Opposing Approach SB NB SW NE
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left NE SW SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right SW NE NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay 20.7 37.5 47.1 74.3
HCM LOS C E E F
Lane NELn1 NELn2 NBLn1 SBLn1 SWLn1 SWLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 24% 15% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 92% 55% 20% 0% 88%
Vol Right, % 0% 8% 21% 65% 0% 12%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 160 310 145 275 10 330
LT Vol 160 0 35 40 10 0
Through Vol 0 285 80 55 0 290
RT Vol 0 25 30 180 0 40
Lane Flow Rate 213 413 193 367 13 440
Geometry Grp 772277
Degree of Util (X) 0.524 0.949 0.489 0.811 0.033 1.014
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.958 8.379 9.228 8.066 8.904 8.296 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 405 434 392 451 400 436
Service Time 6.658 6.079 7.228 6.066 6.699 6.09
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.526 0.952 0.492 0.814 0.033 1.009
HCM Control Delay 21.1 60.5 20.7 37.5 12 76.2
HCM Lane LOS C F C E B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.9 11.1 2.6 7.5 0.1 13.2
HCM 6th TWSC PM EXISTING
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 460 0 0 540
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 460 0 0 540
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 561 0 0 659
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1220 561 0 0 561 0
Stage 1 561 -----
Stage 2 659 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 199 527 - - 1010 -
Stage 1 571 -----
Stage 2 515 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 199 527 - - 1010 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 338 -----
Stage 1 571 -----
Stage 2 515 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1010 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM EXISTING
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 460 0 0 540
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 460 0 0 540
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 561 0 0 659
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1220 561 0 0 561 0
Stage 1 561 -----
Stage 2 659 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 199 527 - - 1010 -
Stage 1 571 -----
Stage 2 515 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 199 527 - - 1010 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 338 -----
Stage 1 571 -----
Stage 2 515 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1010 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM EXISTING
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 100 60 435 80 95 495
Future Vol, veh/h 100 60 435 80 95 495
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 50 0 - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 122 73 530 98 116 604
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1415 579 0 0 628 0
Stage 1 579 -----
Stage 2 836 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 151 515 - - 954 -
Stage 1 560 -----
Stage 2 425 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 133 515 - - 954 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 262 -----
Stage 1 560 -----
Stage 2 373 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 23.8 0 1.5
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 262 515 954 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.465 0.142 0.121 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 30.2 13.1 9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 2.3 0.5 0.4 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM EXISTING
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.9
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 205 535 70 205 545
Future Vol, veh/h 55 205 535 70 205 545
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 35 0 - - 60 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 67 250 652 85 250 665
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1860 695 0 0 737 0
Stage 1 695 -----
Stage 2 1165 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 81 442 - - 869 -
Stage 1 495 -----
Stage 2 297 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 58 442 - - 869 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 156 -----
Stage 1 495 -----
Stage 2 211 -----
Approach NB NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 27.7 0 3
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NER NBLn1 NBLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 156 442 869 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.43 0.566 0.288 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 44.4 23.2 10.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - E C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.9 3.4 1.2 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 6th AWSC PM EXISTING
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 146.4
Intersection LOS F
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 55 30 60 55 165 145 505 25 20 500 45 Future Vol, veh/h 25 55 30 60 55 165 145 505 25 20 500 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 30 67 37 73 67 201 177 616 30 24 610 55
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach NB SB NE SW
Opposing Approach SB NB SW NE
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left NE SW SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right SW NE NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay 18.2 30.7 159.3 213.3
HCM LOS C D F F
Lane NELn1 NELn2 NBLn1 SBLn1 SWLn1 SWLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 23% 21% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 50% 20% 0% 92%
Vol Right, % 0% 5% 27% 59% 0% 8%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 145 530 110 280 20 545
LT Vol 145 0 25 60 20 0
Through Vol 0 505 55 55 0 500
RT Vol 0 25 30 165 0 45
Lane Flow Rate 177 646 134 341 24 665
Geometry Grp 772277
Degree of Util (X) 0.397 1.356 0.325 0.714 0.056 1.411
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.854 8.299 10.336 8.73 8.778 8.199 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 408 446 350 417 410 452
Service Time 6.554 5.999 8.336 6.73 6.478 5.899
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.434 1.448 0.383 0.818 0.059 1.471
HCM Control Delay 17.3 198.2 18.2 30.7 12 220.7
HCM Lane LOS C F C D B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 27.4 1.4 5.5 0.2 30.2
HCM 6th TWSC AM EX PL PROJ
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 5 558 14 7 293
Future Vol, veh/h 6 5 558 14 7 293
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 8 7 744 19 9 391
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1163 754 0 0 763 0
Stage 1 754 -----
Stage 2 409 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 215 409 - - 850 -
Stage 1 465 -----
Stage 2 671 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 213 409 - - 850 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 342 -----
Stage 1 465 -----
Stage 2 664 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 0 0.2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 370 850 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.04 0.011 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.1 9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM EX PL PROJ
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 8 556 9 12 291
Future Vol, veh/h 9 8 556 9 12 291
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 12 11 741 12 16 388
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1167 747 0 0 753 0
Stage 1 747 -----
Stage 2 420 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 214 413 - - 857 -
Stage 1 468 -----
Stage 2 663 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 210 413 - - 857 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 340 -----
Stage 1 468 -----
Stage 2 650 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.3 0 0.4
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 371 857 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.061 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.3 9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM EX PL PROJ
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 35 491 66 50 282
Future Vol, veh/h 22 35 491 66 50 282
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 50 0 - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 29 47 655 88 67 376
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1209 699 0 0 743 0
Stage 1 699 -----
Stage 2 510 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 202 440 - - 864 -
Stage 1 493 -----
Stage 2 603 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 186 440 - - 864 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 323 -----
Stage 1 493 -----
Stage 2 556 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.4 0 1.4
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 323 440 864 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.091 0.106 0.077 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17.3 14.2 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.4 0.2 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM EX PL PROJ
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.8
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 110 396 36 160 401
Future Vol, veh/h 47 110 396 36 160 401
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 35 0 - - 60 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 63 147 528 48 213 535
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1513 552 0 0 576 0
Stage 1 552 -----
Stage 2 961 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 132 533 - - 997 -
Stage 1 577 -----
Stage 2 371 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 104 533 - - 997 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 218 -----
Stage 1 577 -----
Stage 2 292 -----
Approach NB NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 18.4 0 2.7
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NER NBLn1 NBLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 218 533 997 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.287 0.275 0.214 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 28 14.3 9.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 1.1 0.8 -
HCM 6th AWSC AM EX PL PROJ
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/13/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 52.7
Intersection LOS F
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 80 30 40 55 182 161 289 26 10 298 40 Future Vol, veh/h 37 80 30 40 55 182 161 289 26 10 298 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 49 107 40 53 73 243 215 385 35 13 397 53
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach NB SB NE SW
Opposing Approach SB NB SW NE
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left NE SW SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right SW NE NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay 21 37.6 47.9 84.5
HCM LOS C E E F
Lane NELn1 NELn2 NBLn1 SBLn1 SWLn1 SWLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 25% 14% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 92% 54% 20% 0% 88%
Vol Right, % 0% 8% 20% 66% 0% 12%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 161 315 147 277 10 338
LT Vol 161 0 37 40 10 0
Through Vol 0 289 80 55 0 298
RT Vol 0 26 30 182 0 40
Lane Flow Rate 215 420 196 369 13 451
Geometry Grp 772277
Degree of Util (X) 0.522 0.953 0.49 0.81 0.033 1.051
Departure Headway (Hd) 9.015 8.434 9.321 8.142 9.002 8.395 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 404 433 390 447 400 437
Service Time 6.715 6.134 7.321 6.142 6.702 6.095
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.532 0.97 0.503 0.826 0.033 1.032
HCM Control Delay 21.1 61.6 21 37.6 12 86.6
HCM Lane LOS C F C E B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.9 11.2 2.6 7.5 0.1 14.4
HCM 6th TWSC PM EX PL PROJ
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 21 454 36 22 545
Future Vol, veh/h 23 21 454 36 22 545
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 28 26 554 44 27 665
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1295 576 0 0 598 0
Stage 1 576 -----
Stage 2 719 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 179 517 - - 979 -
Stage 1 562 -----
Stage 2 483 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 174 517 - - 979 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 312 -----
Stage 1 562 -----
Stage 2 469 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.9 0 0.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 385 979 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.139 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.9 8.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM EX PL PROJ
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 32 457 24 33 532
Future Vol, veh/h 35 32 457 24 33 532
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 43 39 557 29 40 649
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1301 572 0 0 586 0
Stage 1 572 -----
Stage 2 729 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 178 520 - - 989 -
Stage 1 565 -----
Stage 2 477 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 171 520 - - 989 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 308 -----
Stage 1 565 -----
Stage 2 458 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 17 0 0.5
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 382 989 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.214 0.041 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17 8.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM EX PL PROJ
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.9
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 103 60 456 83 95 517
Future Vol, veh/h 103 60 456 83 95 517
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 50 0 - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 126 73 556 101 116 630
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1469 607 0 0 657 0
Stage 1 607 -----
Stage 2 862 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 140 496 - - 931 -
Stage 1 544 -----
Stage 2 414 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 123 496 - - 931 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 251 -----
Stage 1 544 -----
Stage 2 362 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 25.8 0 1.5
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 251 496 931 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.5 0.148 0.124 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 32.9 13.5 9.4 -
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 2.6 0.5 0.4 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 6th TWSC PM EX PL PROJ
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.1
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 205 553 73 205 565
Future Vol, veh/h 58 205 553 73 205 565
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 35 0 - - 60 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 71 250 674 89 250 689
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1908 719 0 0 763 0
Stage 1 719 -----
Stage 2 1189 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 75 428 - - 850 -
Stage 1 483 -----
Stage 2 289 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 53 428 - - 850 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 150 -----
Stage 1 483 -----
Stage 2 204 -----
Approach NB NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 29.9 0 2.9
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NER NBLn1 NBLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 150 428 850 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.472 0.584 0.294 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 48.8 24.6 11 -
HCM Lane LOS - - E C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 2.2 3.6 1.2 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 6th AWSC PM EX PL PROJ
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/03/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 160.3
Intersection LOS F
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 55 30 60 55 168 148 518 28 20 514 45 Future Vol, veh/h 28 55 30 60 55 168 148 518 28 20 514 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 34 67 37 73 67 205 180 632 34 24 627 55
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach NB SB NE SW
Opposing Approach SB NB SW NE
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left NE SW SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right SW NE NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay 18.8 31.9 176 232
HCM LOS C D F F
Lane NELn1 NELn2 NBLn1 SBLn1 SWLn1 SWLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 25% 21% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 49% 19% 0% 92%
Vol Right, % 0% 5% 27% 59% 0% 8%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 148 546 113 283 20 559
LT Vol 148 0 28 60 20 0
Through Vol 0 518 55 55 0 514
RT Vol 0 28 30 168 0 45
Lane Flow Rate 180 666 138 345 24 682
Geometry Grp 772277
Degree of Util (X) 0.408 1.405 0.335 0.724 0.056 1.456
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.968 8.409 10.539 8.875 8.871 8.293 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 404 439 343 411 406 443
Service Time 6.668 6.109 8.539 6.875 6.571 5.993
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.446 1.517 0.402 0.839 0.059 1.54
HCM Control Delay 17.7 218.9 18.8 31.9 12.1 239.9
HCM Lane LOS C F C D B F
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 29.4 1.4 5.6 0.2 32.1
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUMULATIVE
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 685 0 0 335
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 685 0 0 335
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 913 0 0 447
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1360 913 0 0 913 0
Stage 1 913 -----
Stage 2 447 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 164 331 - - 746 -
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 164 331 - - 746 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 290 -----
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 746 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUMULATIVE
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 685 0 0 335
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 685 0 0 335
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 913 0 0 447
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1360 913 0 0 913 0
Stage 1 913 -----
Stage 2 447 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 164 331 - - 746 -
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 164 331 - - 746 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 290 -----
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 746 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUMULATIVE
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 50 600 60 60 310
Future Vol, veh/h 20 50 600 60 60 310
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 50 0 - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 27 67 800 80 80 413
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1413 840 0 0 880 0
Stage 1 840 -----
Stage 2 573 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 152 365 - - 768 -
Stage 1 424 -----
Stage 2 564 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 136 365 - - 768 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 272 -----
Stage 1 424 -----
Stage 2 505 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 17.8 0 1.7
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 272 365 768 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.098 0.183 0.104 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 19.7 17.1 10.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.7 0.3 -
Queues AM CUMULATIVE
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Lane Group NBL NBR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 113 253 713 287 553
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.32 0.60 0.61 0.21
Control Delay 25.9 6.8 19.2 27.8 4.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.9 6.8 19.2 27.8 4.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 28 101 84 30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 71 57 161 168 62
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1977 889 531
Turn Bay Length (ft) 35 60
Base Capacity (vph) 749 991 1920 698 3040
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.26 0.37 0.41 0.18
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUMULATIVE
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 85 190 475 60 215 415
Future Volume (veh/h) 85 190 475 60 215 415
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 253 633 80 287 553
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 323 612 980 124 365 2187
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.62
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3268 401 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 253 354 359 287 553
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1798 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 5.3 7.8 7.8 6.9 3.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 5.3 7.8 7.8 6.9 3.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 323 612 549 555 365 2187
V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.41 0.64 0.65 0.79 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 807 1043 1045 1058 752 3952
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.2 10.1 13.5 13.5 17.0 4.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.4 1.3 1.3 3.8 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 1.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.8 10.6 14.8 14.8 20.8 4.0
LnGrp LOS BBBBCA
Approach Vol, veh/h 366 713 840
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.5 14.8 9.8
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 13.9 18.6 32.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 19.1 26.6 50.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 8.9 9.8 5.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.6 4.2 4.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues AM CUMULATIVE
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Lane Group NBT NBR SBT SBR NEL NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 47 173 240 240 587 27 560
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.14 0.56 0.53 0.63 0.35 0.25 0.66
Control Delay 41.4 0.9 41.0 11.0 42.2 16.7 49.3 32.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 41.4 0.9 41.0 11.0 42.2 16.7 49.3 32.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 63 0 82 8 111 83 13 131
Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 0 140 40 200 157 40 180
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1496 591 531 612
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 55 70
Base Capacity (vph) 503 518 726 764 380 2863 108 2324
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.09 0.24 0.31 0.63 0.21 0.25 0.24 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUMULATIVE
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 70 35 55 75 180 180 405 35 20 365 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 70 35 55 75 180 180 405 35 20 365 55 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 40 93 47 73 100 240 240 540 47 27 487 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 60 138 170 156 214 320 295 1227 107 53 730 109 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 554 1288 1585 773 1059 1585 1781 3308 287 1781 3101 463 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 133 0 47 173 0 240 240 289 298 27 278 282 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1843 0 1585 1832 0 1585 1781 1777 1819 1781 1777 1787 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 0.0 1.7 5.3 0.0 9.0 8.2 7.8 7.8 0.9 9.0 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 0.0 1.7 5.3 0.0 9.0 8.2 7.8 7.8 0.9 9.0 9.1 Prop In Lane 0.30 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 0 170 370 0 320 295 659 675 53 418 421 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.28 0.47 0.00 0.75 0.81 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.66 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 648 0 557 935 0 809 491 1873 1917 140 1523 1532 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 0.0 26.1 22.3 0.0 23.8 25.5 15.0 15.0 30.3 22.0 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 3.5 5.5 0.5 0.5 7.3 1.8 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.0 3.5 3.7 2.9 3.0 0.5 3.7 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.2 0.0 26.9 23.2 0.0 27.4 31.0 15.5 15.5 37.6 23.8 23.9 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 180 413 827 587
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.1 25.6 20.0 24.5
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 6.5 28.1 17.4 15.1 19.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.3 5.0 66.9 32.4 17.5 54.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 2.9 9.8 11.0 10.2 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 4.1 1.8 0.4 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUMULATIVE
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 550 0 0 625
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 550 0 0 625
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 671 0 0 762
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1433 671 0 0 671 0
Stage 1 671 -----
Stage 2 762 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 - - 919 -
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 461 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 - - 919 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 288 -----
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 461 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 919 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUMULATIVE
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 550 0 0 625
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 550 0 0 625
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 671 0 0 762
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1433 671 0 0 671 0
Stage 1 671 -----
Stage 2 762 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 - - 919 -
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 461 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 - - 919 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 288 -----
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 461 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 919 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUMULATIVE
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.6
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 105 75 535 75 105 580
Future Vol, veh/h 105 75 535 75 105 580
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 50 0 - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 128 91 652 91 128 707
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1661 698 0 0 743 0
Stage 1 698 -----
Stage 2 963 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 107 440 - - 864 -
Stage 1 494 -----
Stage 2 370 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 91 440 - - 864 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 214 -----
Stage 1 494 -----
Stage 2 315 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 32.1 0 1.5
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 214 440 864 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.598 0.208 0.148 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 44.1 15.3 9.9 -
HCM Lane LOS - - E C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 3.4 0.8 0.5 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Queues PM CUMULATIVE
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Lane Group NBL NBR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 134 427 908 323 713
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.56 0.70 0.68 0.27
Control Delay 29.6 13.1 21.6 32.3 4.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.6 13.1 21.6 32.3 4.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 100 162 120 44
Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 149 239 #215 91
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1977 889 531
Turn Bay Length (ft) 35 60
Base Capacity (vph) 654 872 1639 598 2774
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.49 0.55 0.54 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUMULATIVE
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 110 350 630 115 265 585
Future Volume (veh/h) 110 350 630 115 265 585
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 134 427 768 140 323 713
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 441 730 977 178 379 2166
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3095 547 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 134 427 455 453 323 713
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1772 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 12.8 14.9 14.9 11.2 6.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 12.8 14.9 14.9 11.2 6.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 441 730 578 577 379 2166
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.59 0.79 0.79 0.85 0.33
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 575 849 728 726 526 2759
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.7 12.8 19.7 19.7 24.4 6.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.8 4.5 4.5 9.5 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 4.1 6.3 6.3 5.4 1.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.1 13.6 24.2 24.2 33.9 6.2
LnGrp LOS C B C C C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 561 908 1036
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.2 24.2 14.8
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.5 18.3 25.6 43.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.8 19.0 26.4 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.8 13.2 16.9 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.5 4.0 5.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues PM CUMULATIVE
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Lane Group NBT NBR SBT SBR NEL NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 85 43 202 183 183 903 49 829
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.15 0.60 0.46 0.60 0.52 0.46 0.69
Control Delay 47.0 1.1 47.2 18.2 48.1 19.2 63.8 30.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.0 1.1 47.2 18.2 48.1 19.2 63.8 30.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 0 108 26 100 200 28 218
Queue Length 95th (ft) 99 0 215 89 191 272 #89 316
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1496 591 531 612
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 55 70
Base Capacity (vph) 467 488 414 461 454 3037 107 2550
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.09 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.31 0.46 0.33 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUMULATIVE
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 50 35 85 80 150 150 705 35 40 615 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 50 35 85 80 150 150 705 35 40 615 65 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 24 61 43 104 98 183 183 860 43 49 750 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 39 99 119 152 144 257 235 1450 72 82 1086 114 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 521 1324 1585 939 885 1585 1781 3444 172 1781 3244 342 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 0 43 202 0 183 183 444 459 49 411 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1844 0 1585 1823 0 1585 1781 1777 1839 1781 1777 1809 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.0 1.6 6.5 0.0 6.8 6.2 12.0 12.0 1.7 12.4 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 1.6 6.5 0.0 6.8 6.2 12.0 12.0 1.7 12.4 12.4 Prop In Lane 0.28 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 138 0 119 296 0 257 235 748 774 82 595 606 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.36 0.68 0.00 0.71 0.78 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.69 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 635 0 545 563 0 489 619 2312 2393 146 1840 1873 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.9 0.0 27.4 24.5 0.0 24.7 26.1 13.9 13.9 29.1 17.9 17.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.0 1.8 2.8 0.0 3.6 5.5 0.8 0.7 6.8 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 1.3 0.0 0.6 2.9 0.0 2.7 2.8 4.4 4.5 0.8 4.8 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.3 0.0 29.2 27.3 0.0 28.3 31.6 14.6 14.6 35.9 19.3 19.3 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 128 385 1086 878
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 27.8 17.5 20.3
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 7.5 30.8 14.7 12.8 25.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.4 5.1 80.9 19.2 21.6 64.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 3.7 14.0 8.8 8.2 14.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 7.2 1.3 0.4 6.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.8
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 5 688 14 7 338
Future Vol, veh/h 6 5 688 14 7 338
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 8 7 917 19 9 451
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1396 927 0 0 936 0
Stage 1 927 -----
Stage 2 469 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 156 325 - - 732 -
Stage 1 385 -----
Stage 2 630 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 154 325 - - 732 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 282 -----
Stage 1 385 -----
Stage 2 622 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 17.6 0 0.2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 300 732 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.049 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17.6 10 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 8 684 9 12 336
Future Vol, veh/h 9 8 684 9 12 336
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 12 11 912 12 16 448
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1398 918 0 0 924 0
Stage 1 918 -----
Stage 2 480 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 155 329 - - 739 -
Stage 1 389 -----
Stage 2 622 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 152 329 - - 739 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 281 -----
Stage 1 389 -----
Stage 2 608 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 17.9 0 0.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 302 739 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.075 0.022 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17.9 10 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 50 606 61 60 322
Future Vol, veh/h 22 50 606 61 60 322
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 50 0 - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 29 67 808 81 80 429
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1438 849 0 0 889 0
Stage 1 849 -----
Stage 2 589 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 147 361 - - 762 -
Stage 1 419 -----
Stage 2 554 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 132 361 - - 762 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 267 -----
Stage 1 419 -----
Stage 2 496 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 18.1 0 1.6
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 267 361 762 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.11 0.185 0.105 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 20.1 17.2 10.3 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.7 0.3 -
Queues AM CUM PLUS PROJ
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Lane Group NBL NBR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 253 722 287 568
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.32 0.61 0.61 0.22
Control Delay 26.1 7.0 19.3 27.9 4.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 26.1 7.0 19.3 27.9 4.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 29 103 85 31
Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 58 163 168 64
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1977 889 531
Turn Bay Length (ft) 35 60
Base Capacity (vph) 746 987 1911 695 3031
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.26 0.38 0.41 0.19
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUM PLUS PROJ 6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 190 481 61 215 426
Future Volume (veh/h) 87 190 481 61 215 426
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 253 641 81 287 568
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 322 611 988 125 365 2192
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.62
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3268 401 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 253 358 364 287 568
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1798 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 5.3 7.9 7.9 7.0 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 5.3 7.9 7.9 7.0 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 322 611 553 559 365 2192
V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.41 0.65 0.65 0.79 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 802 1038 1038 1051 747 3927
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 10.2 13.5 13.5 17.2 4.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.4 1.3 1.3 3.8 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 1.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.0 10.7 14.8 14.8 21.0 4.0
LnGrp LOS BBBBCA
Approach Vol, veh/h 369 722 855
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.7 14.8 9.7
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 13.9 18.8 32.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 19.1 26.6 50.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 9.0 9.9 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.6 4.2 4.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues AM CUM PLUS PROJ
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Lane Group NBT NBR SBT SBR NEL NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 47 173 243 241 593 27 570
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.14 0.57 0.54 0.64 0.36 0.25 0.67
Control Delay 40.1 0.8 42.5 11.3 43.9 17.5 50.8 33.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 40.1 0.8 42.5 11.3 43.9 17.5 50.8 33.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 0 82 8 113 85 13 134
Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 0 141 40 #204 159 40 184
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1496 591 531 612
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 55 70
Base Capacity (vph) 494 511 714 757 374 2819 107 2288
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.09 0.24 0.32 0.64 0.21 0.25 0.25 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUM PLUS PROJ 7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 70 35 55 75 182 181 409 36 20 373 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 70 35 55 75 182 181 409 36 20 373 55 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 43 93 47 73 100 243 241 545 48 27 497 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 63 137 173 157 215 321 295 1234 108 53 739 108 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 582 1259 1585 773 1059 1585 1781 3305 290 1781 3110 455 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 0 47 173 0 243 241 292 301 27 283 287 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1841 0 1585 1832 0 1585 1781 1777 1818 1781 1777 1788 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 0.0 1.8 5.4 0.0 9.3 8.4 8.0 8.0 1.0 9.3 9.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 0.0 1.8 5.4 0.0 9.3 8.4 8.0 8.0 1.0 9.3 9.4 Prop In Lane 0.32 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 0 173 372 0 321 295 663 679 53 422 425 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.27 0.47 0.00 0.76 0.82 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.67 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 636 0 548 919 0 796 483 1842 1884 138 1497 1507 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 0.0 26.4 22.6 0.0 24.2 26.0 15.2 15.2 30.9 22.3 22.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.0 3.6 5.5 0.5 0.5 7.4 1.8 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 0.7 2.3 0.0 3.6 3.8 3.0 3.1 0.5 3.8 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.6 0.0 27.2 23.6 0.0 27.8 31.5 15.6 15.6 38.2 24.2 24.2 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 183 416 834 597
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.5 26.1 20.2 24.8
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 6.5 28.7 17.7 15.3 19.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.3 5.0 66.9 32.4 17.5 54.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 3.0 10.0 11.3 10.4 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 4.1 1.8 0.4 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 21 544 36 22 630
Future Vol, veh/h 23 21 544 36 22 630
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 28 26 663 44 27 768
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1507 685 0 0 707 0
Stage 1 685 -----
Stage 2 822 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 133 448 - - 891 -
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 432 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 129 448 - - 891 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 266 -----
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 419 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 18 0 0.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 330 891 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.163 0.03 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 18 9.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 32 541 24 33 617
Future Vol, veh/h 36 32 541 24 33 617
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 44 39 660 29 40 752
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1507 675 0 0 689 0
Stage 1 675 -----
Stage 2 832 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 133 454 - - 905 -
Stage 1 506 -----
Stage 2 427 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 127 454 - - 905 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 263 -----
Stage 1 506 -----
Stage 2 408 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 19.6 0 0.5
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 328 905 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.253 0.044 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 19.6 9.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 108 75 556 78 105 602
Future Vol, veh/h 108 75 556 78 105 602
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 50 0 - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 132 91 678 95 128 734
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1716 726 0 0 773 0
Stage 1 726 -----
Stage 2 990 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 99 425 - - 842 -
Stage 1 479 -----
Stage 2 360 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 84 425 - - 842 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 206 -----
Stage 1 479 -----
Stage 2 305 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 35.5 0 1.5
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 206 425 842 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.639 0.215 0.152 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 49.1 15.8 10 -
HCM Lane LOS - - E C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 3.8 0.8 0.5 -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Queues PM CUM PLUS PROJ
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Lane Group NBL NBR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 427 934 323 738
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.56 0.72 0.68 0.28
Control Delay 30.1 13.4 22.1 32.6 4.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.1 13.4 22.1 32.6 4.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 104 170 123 47
Queue Length 95th (ft) 93 152 248 #215 95
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1977 889 531
Turn Bay Length (ft) 35 60
Base Capacity (vph) 636 865 1628 593 2762
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.49 0.57 0.54 0.27
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUM PLUS PROJ 6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 113 350 648 118 265 605
Future Volume (veh/h) 113 350 648 118 265 605
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 427 790 144 323 738
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 439 727 992 181 378 2179
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3095 547 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 427 468 466 323 738
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1772 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 13.1 15.7 15.7 11.4 6.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 13.1 15.7 15.7 11.4 6.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 439 727 587 586 378 2179
V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.59 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.34
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 558 833 722 720 520 2731
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.1 13.1 19.9 19.9 24.8 6.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.8 5.1 5.1 9.9 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 4.2 6.7 6.7 5.6 2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.6 14.0 25.0 25.0 34.7 6.3
LnGrp LOS C B C C C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 565 934 1061
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.6 25.0 14.9
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.7 18.5 26.2 44.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 19.1 26.6 50.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 13.4 17.7 8.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.5 4.0 6.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues PM CUM PLUS PROJ
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Lane Group NBT NBR SBT SBR NEL NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 43 202 187 187 922 49 846
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.15 0.61 0.47 0.60 0.53 0.43 0.70
Control Delay 46.7 1.0 47.1 17.9 47.9 19.8 60.3 30.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 46.7 1.0 47.1 17.9 47.9 19.8 60.3 30.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 0 111 27 102 204 29 230
Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 0 205 87 197 285 #80 308
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1496 591 531 612
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 55 70
Base Capacity (vph) 473 494 417 466 359 2985 115 2629
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.09 0.48 0.40 0.52 0.32 0.43 0.32 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUM PLUS PROJ 7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST 09/23/2021
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 23 50 35 85 80 153 153 718 38 40 629 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 23 50 35 85 80 153 153 718 38 40 629 65 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 28 61 43 104 98 187 187 876 46 49 767 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 45 98 123 154 145 260 237 1463 77 81 1100 113 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 579 1262 1585 939 885 1585 1781 3434 180 1781 3252 335 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 0 43 202 0 187 187 453 469 49 419 427 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1841 0 1585 1823 0 1585 1781 1777 1838 1781 1777 1810 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 1.6 6.7 0.0 7.2 6.5 12.6 12.6 1.7 13.1 13.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 1.6 6.7 0.0 7.2 6.5 12.6 12.6 1.7 13.1 13.1 Prop In Lane 0.31 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 143 0 123 299 0 260 237 757 783 81 601 612 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.35 0.68 0.00 0.72 0.79 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.70 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 636 0 547 561 0 488 484 2199 2275 156 1872 1907 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 0.0 28.0 25.2 0.0 25.4 26.9 14.2 14.2 30.0 18.3 18.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.0 1.7 2.7 0.0 3.7 5.8 0.8 0.7 7.1 1.5 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 1.4 0.0 0.7 2.9 0.0 2.8 3.0 4.6 4.8 0.9 5.1 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 0.0 29.7 27.8 0.0 29.1 32.7 14.9 14.9 37.1 19.8 19.8 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 132 389 1109 895
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.9 28.5 17.9 20.7
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.6 7.5 31.8 15.1 13.1 26.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.1 5.6 79.2 19.7 17.4 67.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 3.7 14.6 9.2 8.5 15.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 7.4 1.3 0.3 6.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUMULATIVE
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 685 0 0 335
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 685 0 0 335
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 913 0 0 447
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1360 913 0 0 913 0
Stage 1 913 -----
Stage 2 447 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 164 331 - - 746 -
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 164 331 - - 746 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 290 -----
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 746 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUMULATIVE
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 685 0 0 335
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 685 0 0 335
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 913 0 0 447
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1360 913 0 0 913 0
Stage 1 913 -----
Stage 2 447 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 164 331 - - 746 -
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 164 331 - - 746 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 290 -----
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 644 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 746 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
Queues AM CUMULATIVE
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Lane Group NWL NWR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 67 880 80 413
v/c Ratio 0.11 0.24 0.70 0.34 0.28
Control Delay 30.6 11.4 13.0 37.6 2.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.6 11.4 13.0 37.6 2.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 0 233 30 36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 29 24 274 #72 54
Internal Link Dist (ft) 777 189 889
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 100
Base Capacity (vph) 805 756 1467 232 1694
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.09 0.60 0.34 0.24
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUMULATIVE
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 50 600 60 60 310
Future Volume (veh/h) 20 50 600 60 60 310
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 67 800 80 80 413
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 130 116 975 97 120 1388
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.74
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1673 167 1781 1870
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 67 0 880 80 413
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 0 1840 1781 1870
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 2.0 0.0 19.0 2.2 3.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 2.0 0.0 19.0 2.2 3.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 130 116 0 1072 120 1388
V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.58 0.00 0.82 0.67 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 755 672 0 1825 204 2242
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.7 22.3 0.0 8.3 22.7 2.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 4.5 0.0 1.6 6.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.8 0.0 5.3 1.0 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.5 26.8 0.0 9.9 29.0 2.2
LnGrp LOS C C A A C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 94 880 493
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.6 9.9 6.6
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 7.9 33.6 41.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.1 5.7 49.4 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 4.2 21.0 5.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 8.0 2.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues AM CUMULATIVE
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Lane Group NBL NBR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 113 253 713 287 553
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.32 0.60 0.61 0.21
Control Delay 25.9 6.8 19.2 27.8 4.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.9 6.8 19.2 27.8 4.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 28 101 84 30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 71 57 161 168 62
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1977 889 531
Turn Bay Length (ft) 35 60
Base Capacity (vph) 749 991 1920 698 3040
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.26 0.37 0.41 0.18
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUMULATIVE
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 85 190 475 60 215 415
Future Volume (veh/h) 85 190 475 60 215 415
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 253 633 80 287 553
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 323 612 980 124 365 2187
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.62
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3268 401 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 253 354 359 287 553
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1798 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 5.3 7.8 7.8 6.9 3.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 5.3 7.8 7.8 6.9 3.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 323 612 549 555 365 2187
V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.41 0.64 0.65 0.79 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 807 1043 1045 1058 752 3952
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.2 10.1 13.5 13.5 17.0 4.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.4 1.3 1.3 3.8 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 1.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.8 10.6 14.8 14.8 20.8 4.0
LnGrp LOS BBBBCA
Approach Vol, veh/h 366 713 840
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.5 14.8 9.8
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 13.9 18.6 32.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 19.1 26.6 50.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 8.9 9.8 5.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.6 4.2 4.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues AM CUMULATIVE
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Lane Group NBT NBR SBT SBR NEL NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 47 173 240 240 587 27 560
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.14 0.56 0.53 0.63 0.35 0.25 0.66
Control Delay 41.4 0.9 41.0 11.0 42.2 16.7 49.3 32.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 41.4 0.9 41.0 11.0 42.2 16.7 49.3 32.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 63 0 82 8 111 83 13 131
Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 0 140 40 200 157 40 180
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1496 591 531 612
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 55 70
Base Capacity (vph) 503 518 726 764 380 2863 108 2324
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.09 0.24 0.31 0.63 0.21 0.25 0.24 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUMULATIVE
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 8
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 70 35 55 75 180 180 405 35 20 365 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 70 35 55 75 180 180 405 35 20 365 55 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 40 93 47 73 100 240 240 540 47 27 487 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 60 138 170 156 214 320 295 1227 107 53 730 109 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 554 1288 1585 773 1059 1585 1781 3308 287 1781 3101 463 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 133 0 47 173 0 240 240 289 298 27 278 282 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1843 0 1585 1832 0 1585 1781 1777 1819 1781 1777 1787 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 0.0 1.7 5.3 0.0 9.0 8.2 7.8 7.8 0.9 9.0 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 0.0 1.7 5.3 0.0 9.0 8.2 7.8 7.8 0.9 9.0 9.1 Prop In Lane 0.30 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 0 170 370 0 320 295 659 675 53 418 421 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.28 0.47 0.00 0.75 0.81 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.66 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 648 0 557 935 0 809 491 1873 1917 140 1523 1532 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 0.0 26.1 22.3 0.0 23.8 25.5 15.0 15.0 30.3 22.0 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 3.5 5.5 0.5 0.5 7.3 1.8 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.0 3.5 3.7 2.9 3.0 0.5 3.7 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.2 0.0 26.9 23.2 0.0 27.4 31.0 15.5 15.5 37.6 23.8 23.9 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 180 413 827 587
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.1 25.6 20.0 24.5
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 6.5 28.1 17.4 15.1 19.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.3 5.0 66.9 32.4 17.5 54.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 2.9 9.8 11.0 10.2 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 4.1 1.8 0.4 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUMULATIVE
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 550 0 0 625
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 550 0 0 625
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 671 0 0 762
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1433 671 0 0 671 0
Stage 1 671 -----
Stage 2 762 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 - - 919 -
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 461 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 - - 919 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 288 -----
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 461 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 919 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUMULATIVE
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 550 0 0 625
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 550 0 0 625
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 0 671 0 0 762
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1433 671 0 0 671 0
Stage 1 671 -----
Stage 2 762 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 - - 919 -
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 461 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 148 456 - - 919 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 288 -----
Stage 1 508 -----
Stage 2 461 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 919 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
Queues PM CUMULATIVE
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Lane Group NWL NWR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 91 743 128 707
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.26 0.80 0.53 0.50
Control Delay 30.0 8.7 21.1 40.6 6.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.0 8.7 21.1 40.6 6.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 45 0 217 48 107
Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 28 334 #120 185
Internal Link Dist (ft) 777 189 889
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 100
Base Capacity (vph) 671 657 1228 243 1519
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.14 0.61 0.53 0.47
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUMULATIVE
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 105 75 535 75 105 580
Future Volume (veh/h) 105 75 535 75 105 580
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 128 91 652 91 128 707
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 206 183 803 112 165 1290
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.69
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1606 224 1781 1870
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 128 91 0 743 128 707
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 0 1830 1781 1870
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 2.5 0.0 16.2 3.3 8.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 2.5 0.0 16.2 3.3 8.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 206 183 0 915 165 1290
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.50 0.00 0.81 0.78 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 769 684 0 1487 279 1994
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.9 19.6 0.0 9.9 21.0 3.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 2.1 0.0 1.8 7.6 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.9 0.0 5.1 1.6 1.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.0 21.7 0.0 11.7 28.6 4.0
LnGrp LOS C C A B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 219 743 835
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 11.7 7.8
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 9.0 28.2 37.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.4 7.4 38.4 50.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 5.3 18.2 10.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.1 5.5 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues PM CUMULATIVE
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Lane Group NBL NBR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 134 427 908 323 713
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.56 0.71 0.68 0.27
Control Delay 29.7 13.1 21.6 32.2 4.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.7 13.1 21.6 32.2 4.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 100 162 120 44
Queue Length 95th (ft) 91 150 239 #215 91
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1977 889 531
Turn Bay Length (ft) 35 60
Base Capacity (vph) 645 875 1651 601 2782
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.49 0.55 0.54 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUMULATIVE
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 110 350 630 115 265 585
Future Volume (veh/h) 110 350 630 115 265 585
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 134 427 768 140 323 713
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 440 729 979 178 379 2168
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3095 547 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 134 427 455 453 323 713
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1772 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 12.8 14.9 14.9 11.2 6.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 12.8 14.9 14.9 11.2 6.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 440 729 579 578 379 2168
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.59 0.78 0.78 0.85 0.33
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 567 841 733 731 528 2774
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.8 12.9 19.7 19.7 24.4 6.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.8 4.4 4.4 9.4 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 4.1 6.3 6.3 5.4 1.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.1 13.7 24.0 24.1 33.8 6.2
LnGrp LOS C B C C C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 561 908 1036
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.2 24.1 14.8
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.5 18.3 25.6 43.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 19.1 26.6 50.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.8 13.2 16.9 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.5 4.1 5.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues PM CUMULATIVE
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Lane Group NBT NBR SBT SBR NEL NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 85 43 202 183 183 903 49 829
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.15 0.60 0.46 0.60 0.52 0.46 0.69
Control Delay 47.0 1.1 47.2 18.2 48.1 19.2 63.8 30.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.0 1.1 47.2 18.2 48.1 19.2 63.8 30.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 0 108 26 100 200 28 218
Queue Length 95th (ft) 99 0 215 89 191 272 #89 316
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1496 591 531 612
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 55 70
Base Capacity (vph) 467 488 414 461 454 3037 107 2550
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.09 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.31 0.46 0.33 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUMULATIVE
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 8
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 50 35 85 80 150 150 705 35 40 615 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 50 35 85 80 150 150 705 35 40 615 65 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 24 61 43 104 98 183 183 860 43 49 750 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 39 99 119 152 144 257 235 1450 72 82 1086 114 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 521 1324 1585 939 885 1585 1781 3444 172 1781 3244 342 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 0 43 202 0 183 183 444 459 49 411 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1844 0 1585 1823 0 1585 1781 1777 1839 1781 1777 1809 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.0 1.6 6.5 0.0 6.8 6.2 12.0 12.0 1.7 12.4 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 1.6 6.5 0.0 6.8 6.2 12.0 12.0 1.7 12.4 12.4 Prop In Lane 0.28 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 138 0 119 296 0 257 235 748 774 82 595 606 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.36 0.68 0.00 0.71 0.78 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.69 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 635 0 545 563 0 489 619 2312 2393 146 1840 1873 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.9 0.0 27.4 24.5 0.0 24.7 26.1 13.9 13.9 29.1 17.9 17.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.0 1.8 2.8 0.0 3.6 5.5 0.8 0.7 6.8 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 1.3 0.0 0.6 2.9 0.0 2.7 2.8 4.4 4.5 0.8 4.8 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.3 0.0 29.2 27.3 0.0 28.3 31.6 14.6 14.6 35.9 19.3 19.3 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 128 385 1086 878
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 27.8 17.5 20.3
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 7.5 30.8 14.7 12.8 25.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.4 5.1 80.9 19.2 21.6 64.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 3.7 14.0 8.8 8.2 14.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 7.2 1.3 0.4 6.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.8
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 5 688 14 7 338
Future Vol, veh/h 6 5 688 14 7 338
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 8 7 917 19 9 451
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1396 927 0 0 936 0
Stage 1 927 -----
Stage 2 469 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 156 325 - - 732 -
Stage 1 385 -----
Stage 2 630 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 154 325 - - 732 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 282 -----
Stage 1 385 -----
Stage 2 622 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 17.6 0 0.2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 300 732 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.049 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17.6 10 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC AM CUM PLUS PROJ
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 8 684 9 12 336
Future Vol, veh/h 9 8 684 9 12 336
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 12 11 912 12 16 448
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1398 918 0 0 924 0
Stage 1 918 -----
Stage 2 480 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 155 329 - - 739 -
Stage 1 389 -----
Stage 2 622 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 152 329 - - 739 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 281 -----
Stage 1 389 -----
Stage 2 608 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 17.9 0 0.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 302 739 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.075 0.022 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 17.9 10 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.1 -
Queues AM CUM PLUS PROJ
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Lane Group NWL NWR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 67 889 80 429
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.28 0.81 0.44 0.32
Control Delay 31.5 12.3 16.8 41.6 3.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 31.5 12.3 16.8 41.6 3.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 0 238 30 38
Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 24 279 #72 56
Internal Link Dist (ft) 777 189 889
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50
Base Capacity (vph) 668 639 1454 180 1684
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.10 0.61 0.44 0.25
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUM PLUS PROJ 5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 22 50 606 61 60 322
Future Volume (veh/h) 22 50 606 61 60 322
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 67 808 81 80 429
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 168 150 970 97 116 1369
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.73
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1673 168 1781 1870
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 67 0 889 80 429
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 0 1840 1781 1870
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 2.1 0.0 20.8 2.3 4.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 2.1 0.0 20.8 2.3 4.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 168 150 0 1067 116 1369
V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.45 0.00 0.83 0.69 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 709 631 0 1715 192 2107
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.1 22.7 0.0 9.0 24.2 2.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 2.1 0.0 2.0 7.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.8 0.0 6.3 1.1 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.6 24.8 0.0 11.0 31.3 2.6
LnGrp LOS C C A B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 96 889 509
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.1 11.0 7.1
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.6 8.1 35.3 43.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.1 5.7 49.4 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 4.3 22.8 6.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 7.9 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues AM CUM PLUS PROJ
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Lane Group NBL NBR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 253 722 287 568
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.32 0.61 0.61 0.22
Control Delay 26.1 7.0 19.3 27.9 4.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 26.1 7.0 19.3 27.9 4.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 29 103 85 31
Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 58 163 168 64
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1977 889 531
Turn Bay Length (ft) 35 60
Base Capacity (vph) 746 987 1911 695 3031
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.26 0.38 0.41 0.19
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUM PLUS PROJ 6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 190 481 61 215 426
Future Volume (veh/h) 87 190 481 61 215 426
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 253 641 81 287 568
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 322 611 988 125 365 2192
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.62
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3268 401 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 253 358 364 287 568
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1798 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 5.3 7.9 7.9 7.0 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 5.3 7.9 7.9 7.0 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 322 611 553 559 365 2192
V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.41 0.65 0.65 0.79 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 802 1038 1038 1051 747 3927
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 10.2 13.5 13.5 17.2 4.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.4 1.3 1.3 3.8 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 1.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.0 10.7 14.8 14.8 21.0 4.0
LnGrp LOS BBBBCA
Approach Vol, veh/h 369 722 855
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.7 14.8 9.7
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 13.9 18.8 32.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 19.1 26.6 50.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 9.0 9.9 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.6 4.2 4.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues AM CUM PLUS PROJ
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Lane Group NBT NBR SBT SBR NEL NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 47 173 243 241 593 27 570
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.14 0.57 0.54 0.64 0.36 0.25 0.67
Control Delay 40.1 0.8 42.5 11.3 43.9 17.5 50.8 33.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 40.1 0.8 42.5 11.3 43.9 17.5 50.8 33.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 0 82 8 113 85 13 134
Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 0 141 40 #204 159 40 184
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1496 591 531 612
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 55 70
Base Capacity (vph) 494 511 714 757 374 2819 107 2288
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.09 0.24 0.32 0.64 0.21 0.25 0.25 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM CUM PLUS PROJ 7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 8
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 70 35 55 75 182 181 409 36 20 373 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 70 35 55 75 182 181 409 36 20 373 55 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 43 93 47 73 100 243 241 545 48 27 497 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 63 137 173 157 215 321 295 1234 108 53 739 108 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 582 1259 1585 773 1059 1585 1781 3305 290 1781 3110 455 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 0 47 173 0 243 241 292 301 27 283 287 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1841 0 1585 1832 0 1585 1781 1777 1818 1781 1777 1788 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 0.0 1.8 5.4 0.0 9.3 8.4 8.0 8.0 1.0 9.3 9.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 0.0 1.8 5.4 0.0 9.3 8.4 8.0 8.0 1.0 9.3 9.4 Prop In Lane 0.32 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 0 173 372 0 321 295 663 679 53 422 425 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.27 0.47 0.00 0.76 0.82 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.67 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 636 0 548 919 0 796 483 1842 1884 138 1497 1507 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 0.0 26.4 22.6 0.0 24.2 26.0 15.2 15.2 30.9 22.3 22.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.0 3.6 5.5 0.5 0.5 7.4 1.8 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 0.7 2.3 0.0 3.6 3.8 3.0 3.1 0.5 3.8 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.6 0.0 27.2 23.6 0.0 27.8 31.5 15.6 15.6 38.2 24.2 24.2 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 183 416 834 597
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.5 26.1 20.2 24.8
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 6.5 28.7 17.7 15.3 19.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.3 5.0 66.9 32.4 17.5 54.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 3.0 10.0 11.3 10.4 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 4.1 1.8 0.4 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
3: WEST PROJECT DWY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 21 544 36 22 630
Future Vol, veh/h 23 21 544 36 22 630
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 28 26 663 44 27 768
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1507 685 0 0 707 0
Stage 1 685 -----
Stage 2 822 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 133 448 - - 891 -
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 432 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 129 448 - - 891 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 266 -----
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 419 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 18 0 0.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 330 891 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.163 0.03 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 18 9.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC PM CUM PLUS PROJ
4: BROADWAY ST & EAST PROJECT DWY mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 32 541 24 33 617
Future Vol, veh/h 36 32 541 24 33 617
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 1 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 44 39 660 29 40 752
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1507 675 0 0 689 0
Stage 1 675 -----
Stage 2 832 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 133 454 - - 905 -
Stage 1 506 -----
Stage 2 427 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 127 454 - - 905 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 263 -----
Stage 1 506 -----
Stage 2 408 -----
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 19.6 0 0.5
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 328 905 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.253 0.044 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 19.6 9.2 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1 0.1 -
Queues PM CUM PLUS PROJ
5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 3
Lane Group NWL NWR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 91 773 128 734
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.28 0.83 0.58 0.56
Control Delay 34.1 9.5 23.3 44.8 7.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 34.1 9.5 23.3 44.8 7.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 0 248 52 120
Queue Length 95th (ft) 101 30 370 #125 201
Internal Link Dist (ft) 777 189 889
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 100
Base Capacity (vph) 634 625 1247 227 1573
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.15 0.62 0.56 0.47
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUM PLUS PROJ 5: FRANCISCAN WAY & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 4
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 108 75 556 78 105 602
Future Volume (veh/h) 108 75 556 78 105 602
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 132 91 678 95 128 734
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 208 185 829 116 165 1311
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.52 0.52 0.09 0.70
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1605 225 1781 1870
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 91 0 773 128 734
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 0 1830 1781 1870
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 2.7 0.0 17.8 3.5 9.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 2.7 0.0 17.8 3.5 9.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 185 0 946 165 1311
V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.49 0.00 0.82 0.77 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 827 736 0 1611 297 2129
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.2 20.9 0.0 10.2 22.4 3.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.2 2.0 0.0 1.8 7.5 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 1.0 0.0 5.7 1.7 1.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.4 22.9 0.0 12.0 29.8 4.1
LnGrp LOS C C A B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 223 773 862
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.8 12.0 7.9
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 9.3 30.7 39.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.4 8.4 44.4 57.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 5.5 19.8 11.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.1 6.2 6.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues PM CUM PLUS PROJ
6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 5
Lane Group NBL NBR NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 427 934 323 738
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.56 0.72 0.68 0.28
Control Delay 30.1 13.4 22.1 32.6 4.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.1 13.4 22.1 32.6 4.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 104 170 123 47
Queue Length 95th (ft) 93 152 248 #215 95
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1977 889 531
Turn Bay Length (ft) 35 60
Base Capacity (vph) 636 865 1628 593 2762
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.49 0.57 0.54 0.27
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUM PLUS PROJ 6: BROADWAY ST & CANAL ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 6
Movement NBL NBR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 113 350 648 118 265 605
Future Volume (veh/h) 113 350 648 118 265 605
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 427 790 144 323 738
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 439 727 992 181 378 2179
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.21 0.61
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 3095 547 1781 3647
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 427 468 466 323 738
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1772 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 13.1 15.7 15.7 11.4 6.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 13.1 15.7 15.7 11.4 6.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 439 727 587 586 378 2179
V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.59 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.34
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 558 833 722 720 520 2731
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.1 13.1 19.9 19.9 24.8 6.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.8 5.1 5.1 9.9 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 4.2 6.7 6.7 5.6 2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.6 14.0 25.0 25.0 34.7 6.3
LnGrp LOS C B C C C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 565 934 1061
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.6 25.0 14.9
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.7 18.5 26.2 44.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 19.1 26.6 50.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 13.4 17.7 8.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.5 4.0 6.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues PM CUM PLUS PROJ
7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 7
Lane Group NBT NBR SBT SBR NEL NET SWL SWT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 43 202 187 187 922 49 846
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.15 0.60 0.46 0.60 0.53 0.47 0.70
Control Delay 49.3 1.1 47.2 16.1 50.0 20.1 66.1 31.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 49.3 1.1 47.2 16.1 50.0 20.1 66.1 31.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 0 113 23 102 201 29 229
Queue Length 95th (ft) 110 0 212 80 #215 315 #97 341
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1496 591 531 612
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 55 70
Base Capacity (vph) 499 515 578 601 378 2695 105 2306
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.08 0.35 0.31 0.49 0.36 0.47 0.37 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM CUM PLUS PROJ 7: MILDRED AVE & BROADWAY ST mitigated
KING CITY GROCERY OUTLET Synchro 11 Report
KD ANDERSON & ASSOC Page 8
Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 23 50 35 85 80 153 153 718 38 40 629 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 23 50 35 85 80 153 153 718 38 40 629 65 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 28 61 43 104 98 187 187 876 46 49 767 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 45 98 123 158 149 267 237 1456 76 81 1093 113 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 579 1262 1585 939 885 1585 1781 3434 180 1781 3252 335 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 0 43 202 0 187 187 453 469 49 419 427 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1841 0 1585 1823 0 1585 1781 1777 1838 1781 1777 1810 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 1.7 6.7 0.0 7.2 6.6 12.7 12.7 1.7 13.2 13.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 1.7 6.7 0.0 7.2 6.6 12.7 12.7 1.7 13.2 13.2 Prop In Lane 0.31 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 143 0 123 307 0 267 237 753 779 81 597 608 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.35 0.66 0.00 0.70 0.79 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.70 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 667 0 575 774 0 673 508 1946 2013 141 1580 1609 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 0.0 28.2 25.1 0.0 25.3 27.1 14.4 14.4 30.3 18.6 18.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.0 1.7 2.4 0.0 3.3 5.8 0.8 0.8 7.2 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 1.5 0.0 0.7 2.9 0.0 2.8 3.0 4.7 4.8 0.9 5.2 5.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.3 0.0 29.9 27.5 0.0 28.7 32.9 15.2 15.1 37.4 20.1 20.1 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C C B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 132 389 1109 895
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.2 28.1 18.1 21.1
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.6 7.5 32.0 15.5 13.2 26.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.4 5.1 70.7 27.4 18.4 57.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 3.7 14.7 9.2 8.6 15.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 7.4 1.7 0.3 6.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.4
HCM 6th LOS C
EXHIBIT 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3
Environmental Assessment
Grocery Outlet
March 3, 2022
Prepared by
EMC Planning Group
EXHIBIT 4
This document was produced on recycled paper.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GROCERY OUTLET
PREPARED FOR
City of King City
Doreen Liberto, AICP
Community Development Director
212 South Vanderhurst Avenue
King City, CA 93930
Tel 831.385.3281
PREPARED BY
EMC Planning Group Inc.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal
[email protected]
www.emcplanning.com
March 3, 2022
EMC Planning Group Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.............................................. 23 C. DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................ 24 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............................................................ 25
1. Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................27
2. Agriculture and Forest Resources .........................................................................29
3. Air Quality................................................................................................................31
4. Biological Resources ................................................................................................37
5. Cultural Resources...................................................................................................44
6. Energy .......................................................................................................................47
7. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................50
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................54
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................58
10. Hydrology and Water Quality...............................................................................61
11. Land Use and Planning...........................................................................................65
12. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................67
13. Noise..........................................................................................................................68
14. Population and Housing.........................................................................................71
15. Public Services..........................................................................................................72
16. Recreation .................................................................................................................73
17. Transportation..........................................................................................................74
18. Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................85
19. Utilities and Services Systems................................................................................87
20. Wildfire .....................................................................................................................90
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance .....................................................................91 EMC Planning Group Inc.
22. Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions................................................................. 95 E. SOURCES...................................................................................................................... 98 Appendices
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B CalEEMod Results
Appendix C Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Appendix D Naturally‐Occurring Asbestos Soil Assessment Appendix E Acoustical Analysis
Appendix F Transportation Impact Analysis
Figures
Figure 1 Location Map....................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph............................................................................................7 Figure 3 Site Photographs ..............................................................................................9 Figure 4 Preliminary Site Plan.....................................................................................11 Figure 5 Proposed Building Elevations......................................................................13 Figure 6 Preliminary Grading Plan.............................................................................15 Figure 7 Preliminary Utility Plan ................................................................................17 Figure 8 Preliminary Fire Access Plan........................................................................19 Figure 9 Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan ........................................................21 Figure 10 Year 2021 Plus Project Intersection Level of Service.................................77 Figure 11 Existing Plus Project Intersection Queues ..................................................83 Tables
Table 1 Project Summary..............................................................................................2 Table 2 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions ...........................33 Table 3 Unmitigated Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions .........................34 Table 4 Non‐Mobile Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions..........................56 EMC Planning Group Inc. 1
A. BACKGROUND
Setting
The 1.572‐acre (or +/‐ 1.6 acre) vacant project site is located at 1023 S. Broadway Street (APN 026‐391‐025) in the City of King City approximately one‐quarter mile northeast of the Salinas River and within 1,000 feet north of U.S. Highway 101. Surrounding land uses include commercial to the northeast and southwest, a cemetery to the northwest, and vacant land and the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department to the southeast. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of HSC, Highway Service Commercial, with a zoning designation of H‐S, Highway Service District. Figure 1, Location Map, Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, and Figure 3, Site Photographs, provide visuals of the project site and its location.
For purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations, division 6, chapter 3), the project site “occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.” Although the cemetery property across Broadway Street from the project site could be considered open space, the cemetery occurs within the limits of Kings City and is not in a natural condition. The vacant land to the southeast is disturbed Project Title Grocery Outlet
Lead Agency Contact Person
and Phone Number
Doreen Liberto, AICP
King City Community Development
Director
(831) 385‐3281
Date Prepared March 2022
Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Project Location 1023 S. Broadway Street, King City
Project Sponsor Name and Address Terry Johnson
Best Development Group
2580 Sierra Boulevard, Suite E
Sacramento, CA 95825
General Plan Designation Highway Service Commercial (HSC) Zoning Highway Service District (H‐S)
Grocery Outlet
2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
and has long been planned for eventual development. The close proximity of U.S. Highway 101 to the project site also contributes to the highly developed, urban character of the setting.
The property on which the project is being proposed was formerly owned by the King City’s Successor Agency to the Former Community Development Agency. The King City Council as the Successor Agency Board of Directors, has approved a purchase and sale agreement and assignment agreement that transferred a larger 4.434‐acre parcel to Stay Cal Hotels.
A tentative parcel map was submitted to divide that property into three parcels. As of this date (January 6, 2022), the tentative parcel map has not been recorded. The parcel sizes are:
Parcel 1: +/‐ 1.596 acres
Parcel 2: +/‐ 0.703 acres
Parcel 3: +/‐ 2.135 acres
Stay Cal Hotels, LLC is selling Parcel 1 to Best Development, LLC for the project.
Description of Project
The proposed project includes a 30‐foot single‐story, 18,187 square foot Grocery Outlet store with 72 parking spaces and 13,908 square feet of landscaping. The project also proposes demolition of the existing driveway facing Broadway Street and the reconstruction of the existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk. See Figure 4, Preliminary Site Plan, Figure 5, Proposed Elevations, Figure 6, Preliminary Grading Plan, and Figure 7, Preliminary Utility Plan, for project details. Table 1, Project Summary, presents a summary of the project features.
Table 1 Project Summary
Number of Stories One
Building Height 30 feet
Building Size 18,187 Square Feet
Parking Spaces 72
Landscaping 13,908 (20% of parcel size)
Hours of Operation 9 AM to 10 PM
Day of Operation Seven days a week
Number of Employees 20-30 Full Time (2 Shifts)
SOURCE: SGA Architects and Best Development Group
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3
The proposed project would be similar to a typical grocery store in California. It would not include any type of food preparation on site. Semi‐trailer deliveries would occur twice per week at the loading dock. These truck deliveries would be scheduled for early morning prior to the opening of the store. There would also be four to five smaller trucks delivering bread, beverages, etc. that also deliver products to the store each day.
The proposed project would operate seven days a week between the hours of 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM, with approximately 20‐30 full‐time employees, in two shifts. A monument sign is proposed to be constructed along Broadway Street. Construction is estimated to commence in the Spring of 2022 with completion in the Fall 2022.
The project site is designated Highway Service Commercial (“HSC”) and is zoned Highway Service District (“H‐S”). Pursuant to the General Plan, the HSC land use shall accommodate a mix of retailing, wholesaling, dining and entertainment, professional and business services, and shopping center developments (King City 1998, p. 26). The H‐S zoning district permits grocery stores subject to a conditional use permit. The zoning district allows heights up to 30 feet, which the proposed project meets.
Development of the project site with a grocery store is consistent with the City’s commercial land use goal, which encourages the City to provide adequate area for commercial land uses to meet the service needs of residents, business, and visitors, and to encourage development of retail commercial, service commercial, and highway‐related uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses. Pursuant to the General Plan Policy 3.1.1, the City shall promote the availability of commercial sites within this land use category to accommodate a mix of retailing, wholesaling, dining and entertainment, professional and business services, and shopping center developments.
For purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, as is demonstrated in the checklist portion of this environmental assessment.
The proposed project includes the following applications:
Conditional Use Permit;
Architectural Review;
Sign Permit; and
Landscaping Permit.
Grocery Outlet
4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Figure 8, Preliminary Fire Access Plan, provides the proposed access routes for emergency fire services and Figure 9, Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, provides the stormwater control measures to be implemented on the project site. The full set of project plans can be found in Appendix A. Future approvals will include a sign permit, on‐ and off‐site improvement plans, and fire service plans.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
None
Greenfield
Metz-King City Rd.
Central Ave.
Jolon Rd.
Bitterwater Rd.
Lonoak Rd.
Source: ESRI 2019
Figure 1
Location Map
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
0 2 miles
Project
Location
£¤101
k
UV152
Morro Bay
k
UV UV25 68
Santa Cruz
Gilroy
Salinas
UV198 King City
§¨¦5
Soledad
Paso Robles
UV1
Regional Location
k
Project Site
King City
£¤101
£¤101
Grocery Outlet
6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Broadway St.
King City Cem etery
Com m ercial Use
Com m ercial Use
Monterey County
Sheriff’s Departm ent
Vacant Truck Yard
Franciscan Way
£¤101
£¤101
Mobile Hom e Park
Aerial Photograph
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
0 150 feet
Figure 2
Source: Monterey County GIS 2021, Project Site Google Earth 2021 Grocery Outlet
8 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Broadway St.
King City Cemetery
Commercial Use
Commercial Use
Monterey County
Sheriff’s Department
Vacant Truck Yard
Franciscan Way
£¤101
£¤101
Mobile Home Park
Aerial Photograph
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
0 150 feet
Figure 2
Source: Monterey County GIS 2021,
Google Earth 2021 Project Site
4 3
2 1
Northern corner of the property facing south across
the property.
4 On Broadway Street facing southeast across the
project site.
3 2 Facing east across the project site.
Facing northeast at the northern boundary of the
project site along Broadway Street. 1
Photographs: EMC Planning Group 2021
Source: Google Earth February, 2021
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Site Photographs
Figure 3
Project Site
Grocery Outlet
10 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Grocery Outlet Initial Study
Preliminary Site Plan
Figure 4
Source: TSD Engineering 2021
0 50 feet
Project Site
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Site Plan
Figure 4
Source: TSD Engineering 2021
0 50 feet
Grocery Outlet
12 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Grocery Outlet Initial Study
Proposed Building Elevations
Figure 5
Source: TSD Engineering 2021
YS
Project Site
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Proposed Building Elevations
Figure 5
Source: TSD Engineering 2021
Grocery Outlet
14 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Project Site
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Grading Plan
Figure 6
Source: TSD Engineering 2021
0 50 feet
Grocery Outlet
16 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Project Site
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Utility Plan
Figure 7
Source: TSD Engineering 2021
0 50 feet
Grocery Outlet
18 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Project Site
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Fire Access Plan
Figure 8
Source: TSD Engineering 2021
0 50 feet
Grocery Outlet
20 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Project Site
Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan
Figure 9
Source: TSD Engineering 2021
0 60 feet
Grocery Outlet
22 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 23
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Recreation
☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Transportation ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Grocery Outlet
24 EMC Planning Group Inc.
C. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☒ I find that the proposed project qualifies for the Class 32 Infill Exemption, as it (i) is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, (ii) occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, (iii) has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, (iv) would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (v) can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. In addition, there is no basis for finding that the exception is subject to an exception either because the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant or because there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. ☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Doreen Liberto, AICP, Community Development Director Date Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 25
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Notes
Although the project qualifies for the Class 32 categorical exemption, the City has gone beyond what is required under CEQA to document the appropriateness of the use of that exemption by conducting a thorough Environmental Assessment. Although this analysis shares many of the attributes associated with a formal Initial Study prepared in support of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, this EA is not intended to be an Initial Study. Rather, the EA serves the function of providing evidentiary and analytical support for the use of the Class 32 Infill Exemption. The format is very similar to that of an Initial Study because such a format was consistent with providing detailed support for the Infill Exemption.
1. A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).
A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis).
2. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐site, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. The categorical exemption for an infill project within an incorporated city may be used where the project (i) is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, (ii) occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, (iii) has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, (iv) would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (v) can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Grocery Outlet
26 EMC Planning Group Inc.
5. “Negative Declaration: Less‐Than‐Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less‐Than‐Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less‐than‐significant level (mitigation measures from section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross‐referenced).
6. Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)] In this case, a brief discussion would identify the following:
a. “Earlier Analysis Used” identifies and states where such document is available for review.
b. “Impact Adequately Addressed” identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. “Mitigation Measures”—For effects that are “Less‐Than‐Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” mitigation measures are described which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project.
7. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.) are incorporated. Each reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
8. “Supporting Information Sources”—A source list is attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.
9. The explanation of each issue identifies:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 27
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 (Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit‐Oriented Infill Projects), would the project:
Comments:
a. The King City General Plan Consolidated Plan Document (“General Plan”) describes the City’s visual and scenic resources as the high mountains of the Los Padres National Forest to the west and the Gabilan Range to the east, as well as the gently rolling hillsides. The project site is located within an urbanized area and not located within a designated viewshed or the Scenic‐Corridor District identified in either the General Plan or the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
b. The project site is located more than eight miles north of the nearest eligible state scenic highway, Highway 198 (California Department of Transportation 2021).
Therefore, development of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Grocery Outlet
28 EMC Planning Group Inc.
c. The project site is located within an urbanized area designated by the General Plan as Highway Service Commercial. The project site is also located within the Highway Service District and the proposed project is required to comply with its zoning regulations as they apply to scenic quality. The project complies with the height regulations as the proposed building is consistent with the maximum height of 30 feet and the project components complement the surrounding developments.
However, pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 17.26.130, landscaping plans are required to be prepared and submitted to provide natural screening of the development. Preparation of a landscape plan per the City code and acceptable to City staff would ensure the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. This is a standard City requirement, and compliance with the requirement is not necessary to avoid a significant environmental effect. The need to satisfy the requirement thus does not render the project ineligible for the use of a categorical exemption. (Protect Telegraph Hill v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 261, 268.) In addition, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, as opposed to ad hoc measures formulated for a specific project, does not preclude the City from using a categorical exemption. (San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1032‐1033.)
d. The proposed project is located on a site that is currently vacant and existing sources of light in the vicinity of the site are primarily from the adjacent commercial developments, streetlights, and headlights of vehicular traffic on Broadway Street.
Development of the site with the proposed grocery store would create a new source of light or glare. However, the site is generally surrounded by similar commercial developments. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the General Plan goals, programs, and policies regulating light and glare such as General Plan Program 3.2.2.3, which states that lighting of commercial areas shall be carefully planned and controlled to the extent necessary to provide security, safety, and identification without interfering with adjacent land uses. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable policies set forth to reduce impacts related to light and glare generated by new development. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on day and nighttime views would be less than significant.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 29
2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non‐forest use? (4,5,6,31)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to
nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non‐forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Grocery Outlet
30 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Comments:
a. The project site is currently vacant. The project site and the surrounding land is identified as “Urban and Built‐up Land” on the California Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Finder. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.
b. There are no land uses within or adjacent to the proposed project that are zoned for agricultural uses. There are no properties within or adjacent to the project site that currently in a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the Williamson Act or agricultural zoning. c, d. The project site is zoned Highway Service District (H‐S). The project site and adjacent land uses are not zoned for forestland or timberland uses. The proposed project would not convert forest land to non‐forest land. The surrounding properties are currently developed with commercial, residential, or public/quasi‐public uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.
e. As presented in a – d above, the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐ forest use
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 31
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Comments:
a. The City of King City is within the North Central Coast Air Basin (air basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (air district).
Regional air districts must prepare air quality plans specifying how state air quality standards will be met. The air district adopted the 2012‐2015 Air Quality Management Plan (air quality management plan) for the Monterey Bay Region in 2017. The air district has established a consistency determination procedure tied to population growth – a project that does not result in an increase in population beyond that projected by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments is considered not to conflict with the air quality management plan. The proposed project is a commercial development that would not result in population growth, so it would not exceed the population projections upon which the air quality management emissions forecasts are based. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the air quality management plan.
b. The six most common and widespread air pollutants of concern, or “criteria pollutants,” are ground‐level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. In addition, reactive organic gases are a key Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Result in other emissions, such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Grocery Outlet
32 EMC Planning Group Inc.
contributor to the criteria air pollutants because they react with other substances to form ground‐level ozone. Health effects of from prolonged exposures to criteria air pollutants include asthma, bronchitis, chest pain, coughing, and heart diseases.
The air district is the agency with the primary responsibility for assuring that national and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the air basin.
The air district is responsible for monitoring air quality in the air basin, which is designated under state criteria as a nonattainment area for ozone and suspended particulate matter (PM10). Under federal criteria, the air basin is at attainment (8‐hour standard) for ozone and particulates. The air district has developed criteria pollutant emissions thresholds which are used to determine whether or not a proposed project would violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing violation during operations and/or construction. The air district thresholds of significance are contained in the air district’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (air district CEQA Guidelines) (2008).
Operational Emissions
Project operations would generate criteria air pollutants, including VOC, NOX, and particulate matter from energy demand, loading dock activities, automobile and delivery truck exhaust. According to the air district CEQA Guidelines Table 5‐3, a project would have a significant operational air quality impact if it would result in any of the following circumstances:
Emit 137 pounds per day or more of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or nitrogen oxides (NOx);
Emit 550 pounds per day or more of carbon monoxide (CO); Emit 82 pounds per day or more of suspended particulate matter (PM10) on‐site and from vehicle travel on unpaved roads off‐site; or
Emit 150 pounds per day or more of sulfur oxides (SOx).
Table 5‐4 of the air district CEQA Guidelines indicates that a supermarket of less than 69,000 square feet would typically not be expected to exceed the air district’s threshold for operational ozone emissions. Therefore, long‐term operations of the proposed 18,871 square foot supermarket would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ozone precursors, for which the project region is nonattainment under the federal ambient air quality standard.
Criteria air pollutant emissions generated during operation of the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Table 2, Unmitigated Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions, summarizes unmitigated criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from project operations.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 33
Table 2 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions
Source
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Suspended
Particulates
(PM10)
Total Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Winter Operations 8.12 8.41 7.85 2.15 58.64
Summer Operations 8.77 7.29 7.85 2.15 50.67
Air District Threshold 137 137 82 55 550
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
NOTES:
1. Results may vary due to rounding.
2. Expressed in pounds per day.
The model results confirm that the proposed project emissions would not exceed the air district’s criteria air pollutants emissions thresholds for ambient air quality.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to localized air quality and the project’s contribution to regional air quality would be less than cumulatively considerable. The CalEEMod results are included in Appendix B.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities are temporary impacts that, depending on the size and type of project, commonly occur in limited time periods. Construction emissions have the potential to significantly impact local air quality, or pose localized health risks.
Construction emissions include equipment exhaust and fugitive dust emissions generated during grading, and ozone precursor emissions generated during the application of architectural coatings and asphalt paving material.
Air district CEQA Guidelines Table 5‐2, Construction Activity with Potentially Significant Impacts, identifies the level of construction activity that could result in significant temporary fugitive dust impacts if not mitigated. Construction activities with grading and excavation that disturb more than 2.2 acres per day and construction activities with minimal earthmoving that disturb more than 8.1 acres per day are assumed to be above the 82 pounds of particulate matter per day threshold of significance. Therefore, the proposed project, which is located on a 1.572‐acre site, would not result in significant fugitive dust impacts as a result of construction activity.
Criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction of the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Table 3, Unmitigated Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions, summarizes unmitigated criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from project construction.
Grocery Outlet
34 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Table 3 Unmitigated Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions
Source
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Suspended
Particulates
(PM10)
Total Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Construction (2022) 27.89 17.01 7.91 4.13 14.38
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
NOTES:
1. Results may vary due to rounding.
2. Expressed in pounds per day.
The model results confirm that the proposed project’s construction emissions (fugitive dust and equipment exhaust) would not exceed the air district’s criteria air pollutants emissions thresholds for ambient air quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to localized air quality during construction and the project’s contribution to regional air quality would be less than cumulatively considerable. The CalEEMod results are included in Appendix B. c. Although the proposed project would not exceed the air district’s ambient air quality thresholds, the proposed project has the potential to exposure sensitive receptors to localized health risks associated with toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions.
TACs are pollutants that may be expected to result in an increase in mortality or serious illness or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Health effects include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, damage to the bodyʹs natural defense system, and diseases that lead to death. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuels combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two‐thirds of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is the primary TAC of concern within diesel exhaust. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk (DPM exposures) and exposure to PM2.5.
Sensitive receptors are generally defined as any residence; education facilities such as preschools and kindergarten through grade twelve (K‐12) schools; daycare centers; retirement homes; and health care facilities such as hospitals or nursing homes. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residents an existing mobile home park located approximately 350 feet from the project site northeast of Franciscan Way (refer to Figure 2). Multi‐family homes are located approximately 550 feet northwest of the site west of San Antonio Drive and the King City High School campus located approximately 600 feet northeast of the site on the north side of Broadway Street.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 35
A cancer risk greater than one incident per 100,000 population (10 cases per million) would be considered significant. The air district regulates operational TACs from new or modified sources under Rule 1000, Permit Guidelines and Requirements for Sources Emitting Toxic Air Contaminants. Rule 1000 applies to any source which requires a permit to construct or operate pursuant to air district Regulation II and has the potential to emit carcinogenic or non‐carcinogenic TACs into the atmosphere.
Rule 1000 requires any new or modified source to prepare a risk assessment and reduce health risks to below the TAC thresholds. Therefore, operational equipment or processes that comply with Rule 1000 would not result in significant air quality impacts (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 2008, page 9‐3).
The proposed project has the potential to expose receptors to construction TAC emissions. Although these emissions would be short term in nature, criteria pollutant emissions from the engines used in construction, which are primarily diesel, are subject to control under regulations adopted by both California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA promulgated new emission standards for off‐road engines in 1998, with CARB adopting parallel standards in 2000. In 2004, Tier 4 emission standards were adopted and were phased in for new engines between 2011 and 2014. In 2007 CARB adopted an off‐road equipment regulation to accelerate reductions of NOx and diesel PM from existing off‐road engines. Beginning in 2012 and through 2023, the off‐road regulation requires operators of older equipment to either install abatement devices, upgrade to Tier 3 and eventually Tier 4 engines, or to retire older equipment.
As a construction activity, the proposed project could result in limited localized emissions of diesel exhaust to which the sensitive receptors at the mobile home park to the northeast could be exposed. However, as shown by the modeled emissions results, operational and construction emissions are far below the air district’s ambient air quality thresholds and are unlikely to generate TAC emissions concentrations that would exceed the air district’s health risk threshold at the locations of sensitive receptors north of the site.
Additionally, due to the presence of prevailing winds from the north and northwest, there is little likelihood of project emissions to drift to the apartment buildings west of San Antonio Drive or toward the King City High school facility north of Broadway Street. It is possible that receptors at the mobile home park could be exposed to project construction emissions; however, the mobile home park is not located downwind from the site and existing development on the parcel between much of the project site and Franciscan Way creates a barrier to airborne particulates. Therefore, the health risk impacts associated with exposures to construction TAC emissions are less than significant.
Grocery Outlet
36 EMC Planning Group Inc.
d. Projects which would emit pollutants associated with objectionable odors in substantial concentrations could result in significant impacts if odors would cause injury, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or would endanger the comfort, health, or safety of the public. Land uses creating objectionable odors typically include heavy industrial and some agricultural practices. The proposed project does not include such uses, although it is possible that equipment exhaust odors could be generated during construction; however, these would be short lived and less than significant.
In summary, the proposed project would not cause any significant air quality impacts, and is not dependent on any mitigation measures in order to avoid such significant impacts. Thus, for purposes of the purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project “would not result in any significant effects relating to … air quality[.]” Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 37
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Comments:
A reconnaissance‐level field survey of the project site was completed by EMC Planning Group associate biologist Patrick Furtado on May 25, 2021; biological resource database searches for the project vicinity were conducted prior to the Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.),
through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Grocery Outlet
38 EMC Planning Group Inc.
survey. The biological field survey included observing and photographing habitat conditions, noting surrounding land uses, and recording plant and wildlife species in field notes.
The flat project site has an elevation of approximately 310 feet. It was previously utilized as a car sales lot and is surrounded in all directions by previously developed open space and current development, including commercial buildings, parking lots, King City Cemetery, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department, and U.S. Highway 101.
The site contains developed (paved) and disturbed (gravel) areas, and low‐quality ruderal (weedy) habitat with patches of non‐native slender wild oat (Avena barbata) and black mustard (Brassica nigra), plus a mixture of other common weeds. Several native coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and non‐native ornamental trees are present along the site margins, and the proposed project may impact some of these trees.
Common wildlife species likely to occur on the highly disturbed project site include raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Small rodents including mice (Mus musculus, Reithrodontomys megalotis, and Peromyscus maniculatus) and California vole (Microtus californicus) may also occur, along with common reptiles such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituophis sp.). Eurasian collared‐dove (Streptopelia decaocto), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) are common bird species occurring in the project vicinity.
a. Special‐Status Species. A search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database was conducted for the Thompson Canyon and surrounding eight U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles in order to generate a list of potentially occurring special‐status species for the project vicinity.
Records of occurrence for special‐status plants were reviewed for those quadrangles in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. An U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Program threatened and endangered species list was also generated for Monterey County, and the USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species online mapper was reviewed. Special‐status species in this report are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the USFWS and/or CDFW; as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected species by the CDFW; or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the CNPS.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 39
Given the highly disturbed/developed condition of the site, the lack of native vegetation, and the site’s isolation from high quality habitat areas, most special‐status plant and animal species known to occur in the region are not expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitats. Special‐status animal species with potential to occur on or adjacent to the project site are discussed below.
Nesting Birds. Native nesting migratory birds (including raptors) are protected during the nesting bird season under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. In particular, sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code make it “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto,” and “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird” unless authorized.
The project site is regionally located less than a quarter mile from the Salinas River and just southeast of a cemetery with numerous grown trees. Vegetation adjacent to the project site provides suitable nesting habitat for a wide variety of birds.
Construction activities, including vegetation removal and ground disturbance, have potential to impact nesting birds if they are present during the bird nesting season.
Noise‐generating construction activities and/or vegetation removal could result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests.
Because the project site is degraded, and the only trees on site are on its margins, the proposed project would not be expected to cause a potentially significant impact to nesting birds. Even if an active bird nest were somehow to be destroyed (which cannot occur in light of the Condition of Approval set forth below), the impact would be very limited, extending to at most a few individual birds, and thus would not rise to the level of a substantial or significant effect on any bird species.
Even so, it is appropriate to impose a condition of approval protecting any nesting birds that could potentially be affected, consistent with the legal protections found in the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and Game Code. The project developer, like any landowner, must comply with these laws. Implementation of the following condition of approval/project component would ensure both compliance with these laws and the avoidance of potential adverse impacts to nesting birds. The project developer has agreed to this condition of approval, making it a project feature, and shall be responsible for the implementing it, subject to monitoring by the City.
Condition of Approval/Project Feature
Consistent with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, to avoid potential impacts to nesting Grocery Outlet
40 EMC Planning Group Inc.
birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all construction activities should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, outside of the bird nesting season. If construction occurs during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist will conduct a pre‐construction survey for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project construction.
If project‐related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys.
a. Two surveys for active bird nests will occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors.
Surveys will be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to King City and no further mitigation is required.
b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 41
fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to King City.
Bats. Trees along the margins of or adjacent to the project site could provide roosting habitat for state‐listed species of special concern pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and Townsendʹs big‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Bat species are also known to occur along the Salinas River, less than one‐quarter mile from the project site. Pallid bat prefers roosting in open, dry habitats with rocky areas. Townsend’s big‐eared bat prefers roosting and nesting found in caves, tunnels, mines, and buildings. These species have been identified as occurring more than ten miles north of the project site (CNDDB 2021); however, information about the distribution of these species in the King City is limited. Construction activities at the project site could result in the disturbance of roost and natal sites occupied by special‐status bats on or adjacent to the project site, if present. Because the project site is degraded, and the only trees on site are on its margins, the proposed project would not be expected to cause a potentially significant impact to roosting special‐status bats. Even if an active bat roost or individual bats were somehow to be destroyed (which cannot occur in light of the Condition of Approval set forth below), the impact would be very limited, extending at most to a few individual bats, and thus would not rise to the level of a substantial or significant effect on any special status bat species. Even so, implementation of the following condition of approval/project feature would ensure the avoidance of any potential adverse effects to special‐status bats. The project developer has agreed to this condition of approval, making it a project feature, and shall be responsible for the implementing it, subject to monitoring by the City.
Condition of Approval/Project Feature
Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal or construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, in trees within 50 feet of the construction easement. These surveys shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, construction access routes, and 50 feet around these areas. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit.
Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked.
Grocery Outlet
42 EMC Planning Group Inc.
If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence shall be prepared and submitted to King City and no further mitigation is required.
If bats or roosting sites are found, bats shall not be disturbed without specific notice to and consultation with CDFW.
If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), CDFW shall be consulted prior to any eviction or other action. If avoidance or postponement is not feasible, a Bat Eviction Plan will be submitted to CDFW for written approval prior to project implementation. A request to evict bats from a roost includes details for excluding bats from the roost site and monitoring to ensure that all bats have exited the roost prior to the start of activity and are unable to re‐enter the roost until activity is completed. Any bat eviction shall be timed to avoid lactation and young‐rearing. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50‐foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the CDFW) shall be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities including tree removal or structure disturbance shall occur until after the nursery season.
b. Sensitive Natural Communities. No sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats occur on the project site. No impacts to sensitive natural communities associated with the proposed project are anticipated.
c. Wetlands and Waterways. In addition to the biological reconnaissance field survey, the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory online mapper was reviewed. The project site does not contain wetlands or waterways. Therefore, no federally protected wetlands would be affected by the proposed project, and no impacts to wetland/waterway resources potentially within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the CDFW, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) are anticipated.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 43
d. Wildlife Movement. Wildlife movement corridors provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing species richness and diversity, and usually also provide cover, water, food, and breeding sites. The vacant project site may allow limited movement opportunities for common, urban‐adapted wildlife species to access neighboring properties. However, wildlife movement in the project vicinity is already greatly limited by U.S. Highway 101 and existing development. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on wildlife movement and would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e. Local Biological Resource Policies/Ordinances. The proposed project would not conflict with biological resource policies contained in the King City General Plan ‐ Land Use Element: Section 3.4 (Biological Resources) and Section 5 (Open Space and Agricultural Lands Goals and Policies). The City has a Street Tree ordinance but does not have an ordinance that protects trees outside of the right‐of‐way. f. Conservation Plans. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the proposed project site.
In summary, the project site has comparatively little value for biological resources.
The site was previously utilized as a car sales lot and is surrounded in all directions by previously developed open space and current development, including commercial buildings, parking lots, King City Cemetery, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department, and U.S. Highway 101. The site contains developed (paved) and disturbed (gravel) areas, as well as some areas supporting low‐quality habitats supportive of common species such as raccoons, skunks, and opossums. The only trees on the site are on its margins, and are non‐native and ornamental in character. Most special‐status plant and animal species known to occur in the region are not expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitats. Out of an abundance of caution, and to comply with legal provisions protecting nesting birds, conditions of approval/project features address the possibility of a loss of nesting birds and roosting special‐status bats. But no potentially significant effects on biological resources have been identified. In particular, there are no potential adverse effects on species formally listed as endangered, rare, or threatened under either the federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, or the California Native Plant Protection Act. Thus, for purposes of the purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, “[t]he project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.”
Grocery Outlet
44 EMC Planning Group Inc.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Comments:
a‐c. Padre Associates prepared a Phase I Archaeological Study, 1023 South Broadway Street, King City, Monterey County, California (archaeological study) for the proposed project in July 2021. The archaeological study consisted of an archaeological records search and a phase I pedestrian survey.
An archaeological records search will identify if there are any known resources on the project site or in the vicinity, which includes historic resources on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. The archaeological records search for the project site did not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the project site; however, two historic resources (Highway 101 and King City High School, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places) are located within a 500‐foot radius. Further, no cultural resources were observed during the pedestrian survey. The archaeological study stated that the project site is situated within the prehistoric territory of the Salinan tribe, but there are no known human remains located at the project site. There is no evidence of any cultural or historical resources on the project site.
However, it is always possible that unique archaeological resources, historic resources, tribal cultural resources (see section D.18), or human remains may be discovered during project grading or construction. In that event, these resources would need to either be excavated or protected in a manner consistent with all applicable state and local laws, and all work will be halted and the resources will be evaluated by a qualified professional. The City of King City adopted an updated and Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 45
detailed list of conditions of approval related to cultural resource impacts in 2019 (Douglas Wood & Associates 2021) that are applicable to all development applications. These conditions are presented below. No mitigation measures are necessary. Because these are standard City requirements, and not ad hoc mitigation measures formulated for a specific project, the need to comply with the requirements does not preclude the City’s use of a categorical exemption. (San Francisco Beautiful v.
City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1032‐1033.) Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to excavation and construction on the project site, the prime construction contractor or any subcontractor(s) shall be cautioned on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying historic or prehistoric cultural resources or removing artifacts such as, but not limited to, prehistoric groundstone, projectile points, shell middens, or debitage, human remains, historic materials such as, but not limited to, bottles or cans and other cultural materials from the project site. Prior to any soil disturbing activities, the archaeologist shall be authorized to perform spot check monitoring of subsurface construction for potential cultural resources and analyze and evaluate those artifacts or resources that may be uncovered. The qualified archaeologist shall also have the authority to temporarily halt excavation and construction activities in the immediate vicinity (within a 50‐ meter radius or approximately 164 feet) of a find if significant or potentially significant cultural resources are exposed and/or adversely affected by construction operations.
In the event of a find, reasonable time shall be allowed for the qualified archaeologist to conduct additional subsurface testing, analysis and reporting, if warranted. During this time, excavation and construction shall not be allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 50‐meter radius or approximately 164 feet or within a larger area as determined by the qualified archaeologist). However, activities may continue in other areas of the project site, if determined by the qualified archaeologist.
All cultural materials recovered as part of the testing or monitoring program shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation and reporting prepared according to current professional standards.
Prior to any demolition, excavation, or construction, the Applicant shall identify a qualified archaeologist to be on call if any cultural resources are identified, or if required by the City, when project excavation of four (4’) feet or greater is needed.
The City shall approve the selected archaeologist prior to issuance of any permit that includes soil disturbance. When excavation of greater than four (4’) feet is anticipated, a Tribal Monitor may be required.
Grocery Outlet
46 EMC Planning Group Inc.
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 (e)(1)(A)(B), in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the project site during development, the following steps should be taken. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. Possible indications of burials could include a layer of shells placed over the burial. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, then the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may then make recommendations to the landowner or person responsible for the excavation work, for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in the Public Resources Code.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 47
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Comments:
a. Energy impacts are assessed based on the proposed project energy demand profile and on its relationship to the state’s energy efficiency regulations and the Town’s land use planning regulations. Both are summarized below.
Projected Energy Use
The proposed project would result in an increased overall demand for electricity, natural gas and transportation fuel. A summary of projected energy demand is provided below.
Electricity. According to the California Energy Commission Energy Consumption Data Management System, in 2019, total electricity consumption in Monterey County was 2,470,652,329 kilowatt‐hours (kWh). Section 5.3, Energy by Land Use – Electricity, in the project CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show projected electricity demand would be approximately 826,719 kWh per year. Projected electricity would be approximately .33 percent of countywide demand in 2019.
Natural Gas. According to the California Energy Commission Energy Consumption Data Management System (2021b), in 2019, total natural gas consumption in total natural gas consumption in Monterey County was 114,999,082 therms. Section 5.2, Energy by Land Use – Natural Gas, in the project CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show that projected natural gas demand would be about 405,189,000 BTU per year or approximately 4,052 therms per year. This is about .0035 percent of countywide demand in 2019.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Grocery Outlet
48 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Transportation Fuel. The proposed project would generate new traffic trips that would increase vehicle miles traveled as compared to existing conditions. Vehicle trips would result in demand for and consumption of transportation fuel. CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show that the projected annual vehicle miles traveled would be 2,595,100 miles. The Emissions Factor Model was used to calculate fuel demand based on the vehicle miles traveled. The model uses vehicle miles traveled as an input, with one of the outputs being transportation fuel demand. The results, included in Appendix B, show that annual fuel demand would be about 122,000 gallons.
The analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Section D.17, Transportation, concludes that by introducing a neighborhood retail use on an urban infill site, the proposed project would reduce VMT by offering customers more retail choices in closer proximity to trip origins. Given that the proposed project would reduce existing VMT, the proposed project would also reduce existing levels of automobile fuel usage relating to retail shopping in the retail area to be served by the proposed project.
Regulatory Requirements
A multitude of state regulations and legislative acts are aimed at improving vehicle fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, and enhancing energy conservation. For example, the Pavley I standards focus on transportation fuel efficiency. The gradual increased use of electric cars powered with cleaner electricity will reduce consumption of fossil fuel. Vehicle miles traveled are expected to decline with the continuing implementation of Senate Bill 743 (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3), resulting in less vehicle travel and less fuel consumption. In the renewable energy use sector, representative legislation for the use of renewable energy includes, but is not limited to, Senate Bill 350 and Executive Order B‐16‐12. In the building energy use sector, representative legislation and standards for reducing natural gas and electricity consumption include, but are not limited to, Assembly Bill 2021, CALGreen, and the California Building Standards Code.
The California Building Standards Code is enforceable at the project‐level. The California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the California Building Standards Code, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce Californiaʹs energy consumption.
The California Energy Code is updated every three years by the California Energy Commission as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and construction methods. The Green Building Standards Code (also known as CALGreen), which Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 49
requires all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and environmentally responsible, was most recently updated in July 2019. These comprehensive regulations are intended to achieve major reductions in interior and exterior building energy consumption.
A project could be considered to result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy if its energy demand is extraordinary relative to common land use types, its gross energy demand is excessive relative to total demand in Monterey County, and/or it fails to comply with energy efficiency/conservation regulations that are within the applicant’s control. The project is a common land use type that is consistent with the City’s general plan and is planned for an infill site. From a land use perspective, infill development can result in lower VMT and lower transportation fuel demand – which is the case for the proposed project. As shown below, the project energy demand would not be excessive relative to total demand and common commercial land use types are not inherent sources of wasteful energy demand. The project applicant would be required to comply with Title 24 of the current California Building Code with respect to energy efficiency. The proposed project would consume energy, but it would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant
b. There are no regulations at the state or local level that would mandate that the proposed project must include on‐site renewable energy sources at this time. The California Building Standards Code would require the proposed project to be built to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time the building permit is issued. By incorporating energy efficient measures per the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the project would comply with existing state and local energy standards and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for energy efficiency.
Grocery Outlet
50 EMC Planning Group Inc.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
(1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(3) Seismic‐related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(4) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on‐
or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 51
Comments:
The information in this section is primarily sourced from Geotechnical Engineering Investigation – Proposed Retail Store Building, 1023 Broadway (APN: 026‐391‐025), King City, California (Salem Engineering Group 2021) (hereinafter, “geotechnical investigation”) prepared for the proposed project by Salem Engineering Group. The report is included as Appendix C.
The analysis presented below has been written against the backdrop of CEQA case law addressing the scope of analysis required for potential impacts resulting from existing environmental hazards found at the site or in the vicinity of a site for a proposed project. In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377, the California Supreme Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” (italics added). The court reasoned that “ordinary CEQA analysis is concerned with a project’s impact on the environment, rather than with the environment’s impact on a project and its users or residents” (Id. at p. 378).
The court did not hold, however, that CEQA never requires consideration of the effects of existing environmental conditions on the future occupants or users of a proposed project.
But the circumstances in which such conditions may be considered are narrow: “when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment’s impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions” (Id. at pp. 377‐378, italics added). a. Fault Rupture. The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface rupture hazards and is not within an Alquist‐ Priolo Special Studies Zone. No active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low (Salem Engineering Group 2021, p. 4 and 5). Nor would the proposed project exacerbate any existing potential for fault rupture.
Seismic Ground Shaking. The geotechnical investigation identified the proposed project as being in the Risk Category II for seismic structural design (Salem Engineering Group 2021, Table 9.6.1), which represents buildings with a lesser hazard to life because of fewer building occupants and smaller building size. The proposed project would be required to be designed in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code and City of King City Building Department requirements, thereby Grocery Outlet
52 EMC Planning Group Inc.
ensuring that the proposed structure would be resistant to any likely damage from potential seismic activity. Nor would the proposed project exacerbate any existing potential for seismic ground shaking.
Liquefaction. Due to the increasing overburden pressure with depth, liquefaction of granular soils is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of a soil profile. Based on the lack of groundwater within the upper 50 feet below surface grade, the potential for liquefaction/seismic settlement to impact the site is considered low (Salem Engineering Group 2021, p. 5). Nothing about the proposed project would exacerbate any existing potential for liquefaction.
Landslides. There are no known landslides at the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides; therefore, the potential for a landslide is not considered to be a hazard (Salem Engineering Group 2021, p. 6). Nothing about the proposed project would exacerbate any existing potential for landslides. b. The geotechnical investigation discusses the removal of the organic‐rich topsoil encountered at the time of grading activities. This removal of topsoil on the project site can result in erosion impacts if the remaining soil is exposed and dries out.
Further, the preferred materials specified for engineered fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be considered, though there is no indication that the proposed project would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Implementation of recommendation 9.5.6 in the geotechnical report (Salem Engineering Group 2021) requiring project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase would ensure erosion impacts are reduced the minimum level possible. The City will require the recommendations in the geotechnical report be implemented during construction.
The project developer has agreed to implement the recommendations in the geotechnical report, making them project features, and shall be responsible for implementing them, subject to monitoring by the City.
c. Due to the relatively flat site topography and lack of groundwater near the surface, the geotechnical investigation determined the likelihood of lateral spreading to be nil to very low (Salem Engineering Group 2021, p. 6). However, the geotechnical investigation found that earthwork operations may encounter very moist unstable soils, which may require removal to a stable bottom (p. 10). The City will require the recommendations in the geotechnical report be implemented during construction.
The project developer has agreed to implement the recommendations in the geotechnical report, making them project features, and shall be responsible for implementing them, subject to monitoring by the City.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 53
d. According to the geotechnical investigation, the near surface soils exhibited moderate compressibility characteristics, slight collapse potential, and low expansion potential.
When compacted as engineered fill, the near surface soils have poor to fair pavement support characteristics (p. 6). Even so, there is no indication that the proposed project would result in substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Nor would the proposed project exacerbate the extent to which the onsite soils have a potential for expansion. The City will require the recommendations in the geotechnical report be implemented during construction. The project developer has agreed to these recommendations, making them project features, and shall be responsible for implementing them, subject to monitoring by the City.
e. The proposed project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f. The project site is flat and has remained undeveloped for almost two decades (Google Earth 2020); therefore, no unique geologic features are present.
Significant paleontological resources are fossils. Most fossils found in Monterey County are of marine life forms and form a record of the region’s geologic history of advancing and retreating sea levels. Fossils are found throughout Monterey County because of the widespread distribution of marine deposits. The Monterey County General Plan identifies twelve fossil sites with outstanding scientific value. None are located in the immediate vicinity of King City (Monterey County 2008).
To be considered a fossil, an object generally must be more than 10,000 years old.
Most fossils recorded in Monterey County to date have been found in geologic formations that are millions of years old. Consequently, it is unlikely that paleontological resources (fossils) would be found during excavations or other related construction activities associated with development within the project site.
Grocery Outlet
54 EMC Planning Group Inc.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Comments:
a. The City of King City has not adopted a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), nor has the City adopted a threshold of significance for GHGs. The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (“air district”) has not developed or adopted a threshold of significance for GHGs from land use development projects, such as the proposed project. In light of the absence of local or regional GHG threshold guidance, the methodology described below is used.
Analysis Methodology
The significance of GHG emissions from the proposed project is evaluated based on a methodology which examines mobile source emissions separately from the balance of GHG emissions sources. This methodology looks first at mobile source emissions in the context of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) generated by the project and a quantified threshold of significance for this emissions source as recommended by the California Office of Planning and Research. GHG emissions from other project sources (e.g., electricity, area sources, water, wastewater) are quantified and qualitatively compared to values derived by modifying quantified thresholds of significance crafted by two adjacent air districts.
This “bifurcated” analysis approach is supported by several published sources. These include: 1) California Office of Planning and Research’s Discussion Draft CEQA and Climate Change Advisory (December 2018), which discusses CEQA streamlining for GHG impacts by examining VMT effects (mobile source emissions) separately from energy and natural gas sources; 2) California Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), which provides guidance on evaluating VMT impacts that affect the state’s ability to Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 55
meet it long‐term climate goals; and 3) Association of Environmental Professionals’ Final Whitepaper ‐ Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California (October 2016), which identifies two hybrid analysis concepts using Senate Bill 375 and Senate Bill 743 that each evaluate transportation (mobile source) GHG emissions separately from non‐mobile sources. Senate Bill 375 was enacted in 2008. Its overall purpose is to reduce GHGs from passenger vehicles by setting regional emissions targets with which local communities can align their land use and transportation policies to help achieve.
Senate Bill 743, enacted in 2013, is designed to help achieve state climate policy and sustainability goals. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21099; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3.) It eliminates traffic delay as an environmental impact under CEQA and instead, requires an assessment of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a basis to encourage development that reduces VMT and associated mobile source GHG emissions.
VMT and Mobile Source GHG Emissions. VMT impacts of the project are discussed in Section D.17, Transportation. The VMT analysis included in the Transportation Impact Analysis for Grocery Outlet Store, more fully described in that section, concludes that by introducing a neighborhood retail use on an urban infill site, the proposed project would reduce VMT by offering customers more retail choices in closer proximity to trip origins. Based on guidance provided by the California Office of Planning and Research for implementing California Senate Bill 743, local serving retail uses with building sizes of 50,000 square feet or less can be presumed to have a less‐than‐significant impact from generating VMT. Given that the project VMT impact is less than significant, the mobile source GHG emissions the project generates can also be assumed to have a less than significant impact. In fact, the net reduction in existing levels of VMT should translate into a net reduction in existing levels of GHG emissions from persons using automobiles to engage in retail shopping in the retail area to be served by the proposed project.
Non‐Mobile Source GHG Emissions. GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod. CalEEMod also estimates the change in carbon sequestration potential resulting from changes in natural communities on the project site. The detailed CalEEMod modeling results are included as Appendix B.
Construction activity, including operation of off‐road construction equipment, would generate approximately 243.12 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per year. To account for the contribution of construction emissions to the project’s non‐mobile source annual emissions profile, construction emissions are amortized over an assumed 30‐year operational timeframe; amortized annual emissions equal
8.10 MT CO2e.
Grocery Outlet
56 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Project operations would generate GHG emissions from energy use (electricity), natural gas use (area source), waste generation, and water use. Projected unmitigated emissions from these sources are summarized in Table 4, Non‐Mobile Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions. Refer to Section 2.2 of the CalEEMod results for the proposed project included in Appendix B for reference to these emissions volumes.
Table 4 Non‐Mobile Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions Emissions Sources GHG Emissions1,2
Area 0.01
Energy 92.13
Waste 51.59
Water 4.21
Total 147.94
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
NOTES:
1. Results may vary due to rounding.
2. Expressed in MT CO2e
As previously noted, the air district does not provide guidance for evaluating GHG impacts from land development projects. Consequently, the air district has not developed a threshold of significance for such impacts. In the absence of this direction, thresholds of significance that were developed by two adjacent air districts – the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), are used as reference for qualitatively assessing the relative magnitude of non‐mobile source emissions from the proposed project. The air district had previously suggested that using of the SLOAPCD guidance and thresholds is appropriate. The BAAQMD threshold is also referenced because it is more conservative.
BAAQMD provided guidance for assessing GHG impacts in its 2017 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, and as part of that guidance, derived a bright line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year. SLOAPCD did the same in its 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and derived a bright line threshold of 1,150 MT CO2e/year. The substantial evidence used by each agency to develop their respective thresholds is included their CEQA guidance documentation. The bright line thresholds were developed to guide new development within each district with the goal of meeting the state’s Assembly Bill 32 statewide GHG emissions reduction target of 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Assembly Bill 32 was passed in 2006.
With the subsequent passage of Senate Bill 32 in 2016, the state set a deeper GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Consequently, the bright line thresholds identified above are no longer valid after 2020. Reducing these bright Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 57
line thresholds by an additional 20 percent, to 880 MT CO2e/year and 920 MT CO2e/year, respectively, would approximate bright line values of 40 percent below 1990 levels to meet the 2030 emissions reduction target. Neither agency has adopted these scaled down values as thresholds of significance, nor has the air district or City adopted either value as such. Rather, as noted above, these values are being used to qualitatively assess the relative magnitude of non‐mobile source emissions from the proposed project. The non‐mobile source project emissions of 147.94 MT CO2e/year are 17 percent and 16 percent of each scaled down value, respectively. The project emissions volume is substantially below both values, which indicates that the non‐ mobile source project emissions should not be considered to have a significant impact.
Given that neither the project mobile source GHG emissions or the non‐mobile source emissions would be significant, the project would have a less‐than‐significant impact from generation of GHG emissions.
b. As describe in item “a” above, neither the City nor air district have adopted plans for reducing GHG emissions. Consequently, the significance of mobile source GHG impacts is evaluated in the context of state legislation embodied in SB 743, and the non‐mobile source GHGs are evaluated in the context of scaled quantified thresholds of significance that had been adopted by adjacent air districts as part of their respective plans for reducing GHG emissions. Because the project impacts are less than significant based, the project would have no impact from conflict with regulations or plans for reducing GHG emissions.
Grocery Outlet
58 EMC Planning Group Inc.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one‐quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. For a project located within an airport land‐use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or a public‐
use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project
area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires? (1,8)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Comments:
a. Development of the project site with a grocery store would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 59
b. The project site is currently vacant and has remained undeveloped for almost two decades (Google Earth 2020). Therefore, development of the project site with a commercial grocery store is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
However, the local air district has raised the potential for naturally‐occurring asbestos (NOA) in the soils on the project site as a possible issue in the King City area and has asked the City to address NOA in CEQA documents. A naturally occurring asbestos soil assessment was prepared in August 2021 by Salem Engineering Group for the project site. The report is included in Appendix D.
Salem collected nine surface soil samples (SS‐1 through SS‐9) from depths of 0‐ to 6‐ inches below ground surface. Sample SS‐1 was collected from an approximately 2,000 square foot soil stockpile located in the southeast portion of the subject property.
Samples SS‐2 through SS‐7 and SS‐9 were collected from surface soils across the subject property. Sample SS‐8 was collected from an approximately 4,000 square foot area of gravel in the northwest portion of the subject property. All sample locations are presented on Figure 2 in the assessment included in Appendix D. NOA fibers were not identified above laboratory method detection limits in any of the soil samples analyzed. Data suggests that NOA is not a constituent of potential concern in soil at the subject property. Based on these results, Salem believes that no additional assessment activities are required. The subject property is suitable for unrestricted use. No NOA is evident on the subject property; therefore asbestos‐related air monitoring during construction activities should not be required. Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of NOA into the environment.
c. King City High School is the nearest school, located approximately one‐quarter mile northeast of the project site. However, development of the project site with a grocery store would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on the nearby school.
d. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. The Mesa Del Rey Airport is located approximately 1.65 miles northeast of the project site. The Mesa Del Rey Airport Master Plan (Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission 1972) shows the project site falling within the Conical Surface (p. 7), Grocery Outlet
60 EMC Planning Group Inc.
which is an imaginary surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of twenty feet horizontally to one foot vertically for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
However, the Master Plan also indicates that, “the Airport Land Use Commission is not interested in the daily operations of the cities’ and the county’s planning function, but rather in certain uses which influence or are influenced by the presence of the airport” (p. 3). The Master Plan lists criteria for the types of uses that shall be referred to the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission and a grocery store, or a similar use, is not identified.
According to the City’s General Plan, sound measurements at the airport indicate that flying operations create no significant noise intrusions on the City’s environment.
Aircraft noise associated with the airport is indicated as “indistinguishable from traffic and other noise sources” within the General Plan. The location of the airport on the outskirts of King City and the orientation of its runway ensure that the City’s settled areas are not affected by aircraft noise (p. S‐10).
Therefore, although the proposed project is located within two miles of a public airport, it would not result in a significant safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
f. The County of Monterey Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan (Monterey County 2020) identifies potential threats and outlines response protocols and procedures in response to emergency situations. The project would replace a vacant lot with a grocery store. The proposed project also includes a preliminary fire access plan (refer back to Figure 8, Preliminary Fire Access Plan), which identifies a fire access lane on all sides of the proposed grocery store. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of the proposed project. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the Emergency Operations Plan.
g. The CalFire “FHSZ Viewer” indicates the project site having no fire hazard risks nearby due to its location in a highly urbanized area. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 61
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐
or off‐site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on‐ or off‐site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(3) Create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(4) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
(12)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Grocery Outlet
62 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Comments:
a. The project site is currently undeveloped. The proposed project has the potential to increase the discharge of storm water pollutants during construction due to ground disturbance. The proposed project would result in the development of a 18,187 square foot grocery store; therefore, the proposed project would create more than 15,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Pursuant to the Stormwater Technical Guide for Low Impact Development – Compliance with Stormwater Post‐Construction Requirements in King City (City of King City 2015) (“stormwater technical guide”), projects creating or replacing 15,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces is required to comply with the following:
Treat runoff with an approved and appropriately sized LID treatment system prior to discharge from the site; and
Prevent offsite discharge from events up to the 95th percentile rainfall event using Stormwater Control Measures.
Projects located within the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit boundaries defined by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, such as the project site, are subject to the Post‐Construction Requirements. The proposed project includes a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (Sheet C‐5, Appendix A), which demonstrates adequate low‐impact development features and facilities that can be accommodated within the project site and landscape design. The project’s Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan includes 11 drainage management areas throughout the project site, which direct the stormwater to these areas and connect to the proposed storm drain systems that join the existing storm drain system in Broadway Street.
The proposed project is required to comply with the requirements of the City of King City Municipal Code Section 17.56.100, Stormwater Pollution Prevention, and the project’s Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan is subject to the review and approval of the City of King City Planning Department to ensure less than significant impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. b. The project site is located within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, Upper Valley Aquifer Subbasin. The Upper Valley Aquifer Subbasin has not historically been in overdraft, nor experienced chronic lowering of groundwater levels; however, there are a few areas where groundwater elevations have been declining. The subbasin’s extraction is currently close to the sustainable yield (Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2021).
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 63
The proposed project involves the construction of a grocery store, which would require approximately 100,000 gallons of water per month to operate (Apana 2021).
According to the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, groundwater supplies would not be severely impacted by development at this time.
Development of the proposed project could potentially interfere with groundwater recharge by increasing the area covered by impervious surfaces (e.g., existing vacant land replaced with a grocery store and parking lot). However, the proposed project includes pervious pavers and 11 bio‐basins, which are all utilized to detain stormwater runoff onsite and drain into the groundwater for recharge and to the City’s existing storm drain system located in Broadway Street. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on the sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
c. There are no streams or rivers located on the project site. However, the proposed project would increase the number of impervious surfaces due to construction of the grocery store and parking lot. Therefore, the project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Potential impacts from the increase in impervious surfaces are discussed below:
Erosion. Development of the proposed project may lead to siltation and/or erosion on‐ or off‐site, though not at substantial levels. Implementation of the geotechnical investigation recommendations discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant.
Flooding. The Preliminary Utility Plan and Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (Sheets C‐3 and C‐5, Appendix A) indicates that storm water from the proposed project would drain into the 11 bio‐basin systems, where the storm water either infiltrates into the ground for groundwater recharge or connects to the proposed storm water drain system onsite that directs the storm water to the existing storm drainage system located in Broadway Street, thereby eliminating the potential for flooding on‐ or off‐site. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
Runoff. Development of the proposed project would create storm water runoff. The Preliminary Utility Plan and Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (Sheets C‐3 and C‐5, Appendix A) indicates that storm water from the proposed project would drain into the 11 bio‐basin systems and direct stormwater runoff towards the City’s existing storm drainage system located within Broadway Street.
Pursuant to the City of King City’s stormwater technical guide, implementing the low‐impact development techniques and meeting the criteria is considered to ensure the avoidance of any adverse impacts from a proposed project on stormwater runoff Grocery Outlet
64 EMC Planning Group Inc.
(City of King City 2015). The project’s Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan implements low‐impact development techniques and meets the criteria through its dispersing of runoff to landscaped areas and the use of permeable pavements.
Further, the project’s Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan treats runoff by way of the 11 bio‐basins prior to its discharge from the project site.
The project’s Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan will be subject to the review and approval by the City Public Works Director to ensure that the project demonstrates compliance with the applicable NPDES permit and does not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Therefore, stormwater runoff impacts would be less than significant.
Flood Flows. As discussed under checklist item “d” below, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows.
d. The project site is not located within a flood hazard area and not located within a coastal area; therefore, tsunamis are not considered a significant hazard at the site.
Further, flooding from seismically‐induced seiche is considered unlikely (Salem Engineering Group 2021, p. 6).
e. The Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency has initiated the preparation of its groundwater sustainability plan, but the plan has yet to be completed and adopted for the Upper Valley Subbasin. Rather, the plan is anticipated to be completed by January 2022 (Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2021). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct an adopted sustainable groundwater management plan.
In summary, the proposed project would not cause any significant water quality impacts, and is not dependent on any mitigation measures developed for the project on an ad hoc basis in order to avoid such significant impacts. Thus, for purposes of the purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project “would not result in any significant effects relating to water quality.”
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 65
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Comments:
a. The proposed project is an infill project and would not physically divide an established community.
b. The project site is designated Highway Service Commercial (“HSC”) and is zoned Highway Service District (“H‐S”). Pursuant to the General Plan, the HSC land use shall accommodate a mix of retailing, wholesaling, dining and entertainment, professional and business services, and shopping center developments (King City 1998, p. 26). Pursuant to the General Plan Objective 3.2, the development is compatible with the surrounding land uses (e.g., the bakery/deli to the north and Denny’s to the south). The H‐S zoning district permits grocery stores subject to a conditional use permit. The zoning district allows heights up to 30 feet, which the proposed project meets.
As discussed in Section D8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, neither the City nor air district have adopted plans for reducing GHG emissions. Consequently, the significance of mobile source GHG impacts is evaluated in the context of state legislation embodied in SB 743, and the non‐mobile source GHGs are evaluated in the context of scaled quantified thresholds of significance that had been adopted by adjacent air districts as part of their respective plans for reducing GHG emissions.
Because the project impacts are less than significant based, the project would have no impact from conflict with regulations or plans for reducing GHG emissions.
As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project is located within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, Upper Valley Aquifer Subbasin. The Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency has initiated the preparation of its groundwater sustainability plan, but the plan has yet to be completed and adopted for the Upper Valley Subbasin; anticipated to be completed by January 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Cause any significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Grocery Outlet
66 EMC Planning Group Inc.
(Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2021). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct an adopted sustainable groundwater management plan. Further, projects located within the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit boundaries defined by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, such as the project site, are subject to the Post‐Construction Requirements. The proposed project has prepared a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, which demonstrates adequate low‐impact development features and facilities that can be accommodated within the project site and landscape design. The proposed project is also required to comply with the requirements of the City of King City Municipal Code Section 17.56.100, Stormwater Pollution Prevention.
For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in significant physical environmental impacts due to conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 67
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Comments:
a, b. The General Plan states that primary natural resources within the area have been extracted at field near San Ardo, about 15 miles south of King City. Historically, various minerals have been extracted from the general area surrounding King City, but not from any known locations within King City’s planning area. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to result in impacts to known mineral resources or result in the loss of availability of a locally important resource recovery site.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land‐use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Grocery Outlet
68 EMC Planning Group Inc.
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
WJV Acoustics prepare an acoustical analysis for the proposed project. The report is included in Appendix E. The project site is located within the developed highway commercial area of King City. The proposed project is an infill project, as the project site is surrounded by retail and commercial uses, Broadway Street and U.S. Highway 101, as well as the cemetery north of Broadway Street. There are no sensitive land uses (residential, schools, hospitals) in the immediate project site vicinity. The nearest residences are approximately 350 feet to the east‐ northeast of Franciscan Way.
Existing Noise Environment
The existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic associated with vehicles traveling on US 101, Broadway Street and Franciscan Way.
Additional sources of noise observed during the site inspection included landscaping activities, occasional aircraft overflights, commercial/industrial activities, birds, barking dogs and noise associated with human activity at nearby residential land uses.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or in applicable standards of other
agencies? OR –
A substantial permanent or temporary increase in
noise levels above levels existing without the
project?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Generation of excessive ground‐borne vibration
or ground borne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land‐use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public‐use airport,
expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 69
WJVA Acoustics staff conducted background (ambient) noise level measurements near the project site on October 6, 2021. The measurement sites were located in the direction and vicinity of the closest off‐site residential land uses. Long‐term ambient noise measurements were conducted continuously for a period of 24 hours using an automated sound level meter at one (1) monitoring location (LT‐1). Additionally, WJVA staff conducted short‐term (15‐ minute) noise level measurements at four (4) ambient noise monitoring locations (ST‐1 through ST‐4). The locations of the ambient noise measurement sites are provided as Figure 2 of the acoustical analysis in Appendix E.
Comments:
a. Temporary Construction Noise. Construction noise would occur at various locations within the project site through the construction period. Existing sensitive receptors (residences) are located as close as 350 feet from construction activities. Construction noise is not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to daytime hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. King City does not specifically provide limits on hours of construction; however, it is common practice to limit hours of construction to occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (or other specific time limitations) when construction is to occur near sensitive receptor locations. Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents if nighttime operations were to occur or if equipment is not properly muffled or maintained.
The applicant proposes to limit noise‐related construction activities to 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sundays or holidays, which is the industry standard.
Operational Noise. The King City General Plan EIR concluded that buildout under the general plan would not result in a significant noise impact. As the proposed project is an infill development consistent with the general plan, it is anticipated that proposed project would not result in a significant operational noise impact.
The acoustical analysis addressed the following operational noise‐generating activities. The conclusions are summarized herein.
Increases in Traffic Noise. The report concluded that the proposed project would not result in noise levels at any sensitive receptor locations to exceed any King City noise level standards nor result in a substantial increase over existing (without project) ambient noise levels.
Noise from Slow‐Moving Trucks on Site. Reference to noise levels measured at LT‐1 as well as ST‐1, ST‐2 and ST‐3 (Figure 2, Appendix E) indicate that ambient noise levels measured in the vicinity of the residential land uses north of the site Grocery Outlet
70 EMC Planning Group Inc.
already exceed the applicable King City noise level standards, and noise levels associated with truck movements would not exceed existing ambient noise levels and would generally not be audible at the residential land uses. Loading Docks. Noise levels at the loading docks would not exceed any applicable King City noise level standards nor would they exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels measured at the noise measurement sites near the residential land uses.
Mechanical Equipment. Noise levels would not exceed any King City noise level standard or exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels. Parking Lot Activities. Noise levels would not exceed any of the City’s applicable noise levels standards or exceed existing ambient noise levels at the closest residential land uses.
b. Vibrations associated with construction and on‐going operations are not expected to be felt at the closest off‐site sensitive uses.
c. Refer to “e” in Section 9.0, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with the King City Airport.
In summary, the proposed project would not cause any significant noise or vibration impacts, and is not dependent on any mitigation measures developed for the project on an ad hoc basis in order to avoid such significant impacts. Thus, for purposes of the purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project “would not result in any significant effects relating to … noise[.]”
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 71
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Comments:
a, b. The proposed project involves the infill of a vacant site with a grocery store.
Therefore, development of the proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth in the area directly or indirectly and would not displace people or housing.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Grocery Outlet
72 EMC Planning Group Inc.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
Comments:
a, b. Development of the project site with a grocery may require fire and police protection services. However, the City’s police and fire services can adequately service the proposed project without the need for new or physically altered facilities. While there would be an “impact” on fire and police protection services, the impact would not result in a physical impact, and therefore, there would be no environmental impact. c. The proposed project is not population generating and therefore, does not involve school‐aged children, and would have no effect on school facilities. d, e. Development of the project site with a grocery store is not a population generating project and would not significantly increase the demand on parks and other public facilities. Therefore, although employees of the project may utilize the local park system, the use would not result in physical changes to the park and therefore, there would be no environmental impact.
In summary, the City’s public services are adequate to serve the proposed project.
Thus, for purposes of the purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project “site can be adequately served by all required public services.”
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 73
16. RECREATION
Comments:
a, b. Development of the project site with a grocery store does not increase the population of the City; therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or require construction of recreational facilities.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Grocery Outlet
74 EMC Planning Group Inc.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
KD Anderson and Associates conducted a transportation impact analysis of the proposed project. The report is included as Appendix E.
Comments:
a. Roadways. As of late 2018, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service [LOS] or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA],” with exceptions not relevant to the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(2).) As of July 2020, “vehicle miles traveled [VMT] is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3, subd. (a).) VMT “refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.
Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non‐motorized travel.” (Ibid.)
Despite these recent changes to CEQA, the City is still free to consider LOS in connection with its planning decisions, even though it does so not under CEQA but to help to ensure that a proposed project satisfies the City’s General Plan policies relating to LOS. The City’s source of authority for imposing conditions of approval to maintain acceptable LOS is the City’s police power. Article XI, section 7, of the California Constitution confers on cities the power to “make and enforce within [their] limits all local police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” As the California Supreme Court has held, a land use Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 75
regulation is within a city’s police power if the regulation is reasonably related to the public welfare. (Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 600‐ 601.) Nothing in Senate Bill 743 (2013), which abolished the use of LOS in CEQA analysis once new CEQA Guidelines with a different metric (VMT) were in place, prevents local agencies from continuing to exercise their police power as a means of enforcing General Plan policies involving LOS. The discussion below of LOS, then, is outside the ambit of CEQA, and is included solely for purposes of seeking to achieve General Plan consistency.
The City has a minimum Level of Service (LOS) standard of C. As shown in Figure 10, Year 2021 Plus Project Intersection Level of Service, the addition of project traffic would increase the length of delays already occurring at study intersections, but the project does not change the Level of Service at any location. The Broadway Street / Mildred Street intersection would continue to operate at LOS F which exceeds the General Plan Policy minimum LOS, and the traffic signal identified in the City’s traffic impact fee program would continue to be needed. Similarly, the northbound Canal Street approach at Broadway Street / Canal Street intersection would continue to operate at LOS D, which exceeds the LOS C minimum. The traffic signal identified in the City’s impact fee program would be needed.
Other study intersections, including the site access on Broadway Street would continue to operate with Levels of Service that satisfy the General Plan policy LOS C minimum.
The project will increase the length of peak period queues near the US 101 / Broadway Street interchange. The City of King City is working to construct a roundabout at the Broadway Street / San Antonio Drive intersection which is the key control of traffic flow in this area. The roundabout has been designed, and the City is waiting for funding. Once the roundabout is installed overall traffic conditions will improve.
The proposed project would be required to pay the appropriate traffic impact fees to pay for its fair share of transportation facility improvements in order to alleviate its contribution to the cumulative (past, present, and future) conditions. The fees are discussed below.
Traffic Impact Fee Projects. The proposed project traffic would contribute to the need for traffic signals and intersection improvements at intersections that are included in the City’s existing traffic impact fee program at these locations:
Broadway Street / Canal Street
Broadway Street / Mildred Street
Grocery Outlet
76 EMC Planning Group Inc.
The proposed project would be required to contribute its fair share to the cost of these improvements by paying adopted traffic impacts fees.
Broadway Street / Franciscan Way intersection. The proposed project traffic would also contribute to the need for a traffic signal at the Broadway Street / Franciscan Way intersection under cumulative conditions. This improvement is not in the City’s traffic impact fee program. The proposed project would be required to contribute its fair share to the cost a traffic signal based on its pro rate share of future traffic. Table 16 in the transportation impact analysis (Appendix E) outlines the proposed project’s share of future traffic at each study location. The proposed project traffic represents
18.9 percent of the future traffic at the Broadway Street / Franciscan Way intersection.
The project developer has agreed to this condition of approval, making it a project feature, and shall be responsible for the implementing it, subject to monitoring by the City. With the payment of fair share fees as set forth above, the proposed project will be consistent with, and will not violate, the General Plan requirement for the maintenance of LOS C or better.
Transit Service and Facilities. MST operates on Broadway Street in the area of the project’s proposed driveways. These driveways will be designed to King City standards, and by doing so the proposed project would not physically disrupt an existing transit service or facility nor interfere with implementation of a planned transit service or facility. The traffic operational analysis indicates that the project’s traffic contribution to roads that are used by MST would increase delay at intersections slightly but would be too small to result in increased travel time for busses that adversely effect on‐time performance. Some customers and employees of the proposed project could elect to use MST, but as the closest stop is 2,000 feet away, the project would not result in increased transit ridership demands that result in passenger loads that exceed vehicle loading standards. As the project access is not adjacent to any transit facility, the project does not result in increased potential for safety conflicts involving transit vehicles and other modes of travel. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit service.
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis for Grocery Outlet Store, King City, CA Page 28 TABLE 10
YEAR 2021 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Existing Plus Project Existing Existing Plus Project LOS
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay (sec/veh)
Current Traffic Controls
Broadway Cir / US 101 NB ramps WB Stop B 14 C 17 B 13 B 15 Broadway St / San Antonio Dr Signal B 11 B 11 B 12 B 12 Broadway St / Franciscan Way NB Stop B 14 B 14 C 24 D 26 Broadway St / Canal St NB Stop C 15 C 15 D 28 D 30
Broadway St / Mildred St AWS C 23 C 24 F 146 F 160
Broadway St / West Access NB Stop B 14 C 16
Broadway St / East Access NB Stop B 14 C 17
With Broadway Street / Broadway Circle / San Antonio Drive Roundabout Broadway Cir / US 101 NB ramps WB right B 13 B 14 C 16 C 16 Broadway St / San Antonio Dr roundabout A 7 A 8 B 11 B 13 Bold indicates conditions in excess of adopted LOS C standard Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Year 2021 Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
Figure 10
Source: KD Anderson & Associates 2021
Grocery Outlet
78 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 79
Bicycle Facilities. The proposed project would not interfere with use of any existing bicycle facility. The project would not interfere with implementation of a bicycle facility identified in in the Monterey County Active Transportation Plan (2018). Some project employees and customers might elect to ride bicycles to the site, and the project includes bike racks. Those cyclists would share local roads with automobiles, and based on current observed use would not result in a significant increase in bicyclists on a facility that does not have adequate bicycle facilities, such that conflicts between bicyclists and other travel modes are likely to increase. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle facilities.
Pedestrian Facilities. It is possible that employees or customers of the proposed project would elect to walk to and from the site to the other businesses along Broadway Street or Franciscan Way or to the residential neighborhoods around the site. However, as sidewalks exist on the streets surrounding the site, and marked crossings are provided on Broadway Street, the effects of project pedestrian travel are not significant. The proposed project would not physically disrupt an existing pedestrian facility or interfere with implementation of a planned pedestrian facility.
The proposed project does not result in an increased presence of vehicles and/or pedestrians on a facility that does not have adequate pedestrian facilities, such that conflicts between pedestrians and other travel modes are likely to increase. b. CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). As noted earlier, VMT refers to the amount and distance of vehicle travel attributable to a project. VMT generally represents the number of vehicle trips generated by a project multiplied by the average trip length for those trips. For CEQA transportation impact assessment, VMT is to be calculated using the origin‐destination VMT method, which accounts for the full distance of vehicle trips with one end from the project.
The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) document Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2018) provides general direction regarding the methods to be employed and significance criteria to evaluate VMT impacts, absent polices adopted by local agencies. These methods were used in this evaluation and are detailed in the transportation impact analysis.
OPR provides this direction for retail projects. Generally, lead agencies should analyze the effects of a retail project by assessing the change in total VMT because retail projects typically re‐route travel from other retail destinations. A retail project might lead to increases or decreases in VMT, depending on previously existing retail travel patterns.
Grocery Outlet
80 EMC Planning Group Inc.
OPR also provides guidance regarding Screening Thresholds that would allow agencies to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less‐than significant impact without conducting as detailed study. The OPR technical advisory states, “By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local‐serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less‐than‐significant transportation impact. Regional‐serving retail development, on the other hand, which can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to have a significant impact. Where such development decreases VMT, lead agencies should consider the impact to be less‐than‐significant.
Many cities and counties define local‐serving and regional‐serving retail in their zoning codes. Lead agencies may refer to those local definitions when available, but should also consider any project‐specific information, such as market studies or economic impacts analyses that might bear on customers’ travel behavior. Because lead agencies will best understand their own communities and the likely travel behaviors of future project users, they are likely in the best position to decide when a project will likely be local‐serving. Generally, however, retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional‐serving, and so lead agencies should undertake an analysis to determine whether the project might increase or decrease VMT.”
The proposed project would attract customers residing in King City and in surrounding communities. Today the closest existing Grocery Outlet stores are in Paso Robles (51 miles south) and Salinas (49 miles north), and the new store would provide a much closer option. The Grocery Outlet store would compete with the existing Safeway on Franciscan Street in the King City Plaza, and to lesser degree with local specialty markets such as El Pueblo Market and La Princessa Market on Broadway Street to the east. The Grocery Outlet store’s most likely effect on regional travel would be to slightly reduce the length of trips from northern areas of King City and to offer another option for shopping trips made by residents of areas to the south and east. The effect on VMT is likely to be small, but generally VMT will be reduced by offering a closer option. This conclusion is consistent with the OPR presumption that the VMT effects of locally serving retail uses of 50,000 square feet or less may be considered to be less than significant. The proposed project’s impact on regional VMT can be presumed to be less than significant under the OPR Locally Serving Retail criteria. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 81
c. Roadway Design and Users. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards to vehicle safety due to increased traffic at locations with geometric design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections). Regular site traffic and vehicles visiting the site during construction will be comprised of automobiles and trucks permitted under the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and no farm equipment is expected, as no farmlands are in the immediate project vicinity. The project does not introduce incompatible users (e.g., farm equipment) to a roadway or transportation facility not intended for those users.
d. Project Effects / Impacts based on Peak Period Queue Lengths. As noted in Figure 11, Existing Plus Project Intersection Queues, the proposed project would add traffic at some locations where turn lane queues are a consideration. At the Broadway Street / Broadway Circle / San Antonio Drive intersection, the proposed project would increase peak queue by 10 to 15 feet. but this increase would not appreciably effect safety or emergency access in this area. The queues would continue to extend into the transition area between the left turn lane and the adjoining TWLT lane but will not spillover into the adjoining through lane.
The project will increase the volume of traffic on US 101 / Broadways Circle off ramps. At the US 101 NB ramps, the off‐ramp queue would remain within the distance between the intersection and the ramp gore. The distance from end of queue to the gore point (i.e., 750 feet) would satisfy Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Table 405.2B requirements for deceleration to a stop from the 65 mph posted speed limit. Motorists will be able to slow to a stop without interfering with the flow of traffic on NB US 101.
The project would add traffic to the US 101 SB off ramp. However, as this ramp is uncontrolled (i.e., stop sign on westbound Broadway Circle approach), this additional traffic would not result in queuing onto the mainline freeway.
In summary, the proposed project would not cause any significant traffic impacts, and is not dependent on any mitigation measures developed for the project on an ad hoc basis in order to avoid such significant impacts. Thus, for purposes of the purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project “would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic.” Grocery Outlet
82 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Transportation Impact Analysis for Grocery Outlet Store, King City, CA Page 29 TABLE 11
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION QUEUES
Intersection Movement
Storage
(feet)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Existing Plus Project Existing Existing Plus Project Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Volume
(vph)
95th %
Queue
(feet)
Current Traffic Controls
Broadway Cir / US 101 NB ramps WB 8751 140 110 142 125 130 95 133 105 Broadway St /
San Antonio Dr
NB left 50 10 25 10 25 10 25 10 25
SB left 802 245 150 254 165 160 120 177 135
EB approach - 10 35 10 35 31 50 31 55
WB left 802 165 115 169 125 320 195 333 195
Broadway St /
Franciscan Wy
NB left 402 20 <25 22 <25 100 60 103 65
WB left No lane2 50 <25 50 <25 60 <25 50 <25
Broadway St /
Canal St
NB left 40 45 <25 47 <25 55 85 58 90
WB left 602 160 <25 160 <25 205 30 205 30
Broadway St /
Mildred St
NB approach - 145 40 147 40 110 35 113 35
SB approach - 275 95 277 105 280 140 283 140
EB left 553 160 45 161 50 145 50 148 50
WB left 652 10 <25 10 <25 20 <25 20 <25
Broadway St / West access NB approach - 11 <25 44 <25
Broadway St / East Access NB approach - 17 <25 67 <25
With Broadway Street / San Antonio Dr Roundabout
Broadway Cir / US 101 NB ramps WB 8751 140 35 142 35 130 45 133 45 Broadway St / San Antonio Dr /
Broadway Circle
NB thru - 155 <25 155 30 245 45 245 45
NB right - 330 45 338 45 290 40 304 45
SB - 421 70 430 80 325 90 342 105
EB - 10 <25 10 <25 31 25 31 <25
WB - 280 35 289 40 545 280 574 335
Highlighted values exceed available storage. 1 distance from stop bar to ramp gore 2 lane followed by TWLT lane Grocery Outlet Environmental Assessment
Existing Plus Project Intersection Queues
Figure 11
Source: KD Anderson & Associates 2021
Grocery Outlet
84 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 85
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources code section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Comments:
a. Tribal consultation is not required for projects that are categorically exempt.
However, as discussed in the Section D5, Cultural Resources, of this initial study, a cultural resources records search and an archaeological survey were conducted and there is no evidence of known tribal cultural resources at the project site; however, two historic resources (Highway 101 and King City High School, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places) are located within a 500‐foot radius. Further, no cultural resources were observed during the pedestrian survey. The archaeological study stated that the project site is situated within the prehistoric territory of the Salinan tribe, but there are no known human remains located at the project site. There is no evidence of any tribal cultural resources on the project site.
Grocery Outlet
86 EMC Planning Group Inc.
However, in the unlikely event significant tribal cultural resources are discovered during earth‐moving activities, the standard conditions of approval discussed in Section D5, Cultural Resources would ensure that impacts would be less than significant, as any cultural resources encountered during construction would be analyzed to see if they qualified as tribal cultural resources, and would be subject to mitigation if they were.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 87
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Comments:
a. Water. The project site would be served by California Water Services Company (“Cal Water”); the system relies upon six wells that draw from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin recharged by the Salinas River.
The proposed project involves the construction of a grocery store, which would require approximately 100,000 gallons of water per month (or 3.7 acre‐feet of water per year) to operate (Apana 2021). The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan – King City District states that the City’s commercial uses used 432 acre‐feet of water in 2020 and is projected to use 433 acre‐feet of water in 2025 (p. 35). The proposed project would Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment,
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple
dry years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Grocery Outlet
88 EMC Planning Group Inc.
make up 0.85 percent of the commercial water use total projected for 2025 ([3.7 acre‐ feet per year / 433 acre‐feet per year] x 100). Therefore, the proposed project’s water use needs would be met without requiring the construction of new or expanded water facilities. Therefore, there would be no physical changes and therefore, there would be no environmental impact.
Wastewater. According to the King City Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan – Final (2017), retail uses require approximately 750 gallons per day per acre. With a square footage of 18,187, the proposed project would generate about 314 gallons per day, or
0.0003 mgd. The facilities plan indicates that the treatment facility has a design capacity of 1.2 mgd, with new commercial development within the City is anticipated to generate a total of 0.03 mgd of wastewater. The proposed project would make up a minimal amount of this commercial use total, with 0.0297 mgd of wastewater remaining for the other anticipated commercial uses in the City, and the project would make up approximately 0.025 percent of the total design capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause environmental effects.
Storm Water. The proposed project would connect to the existing drainage system on Broadway Street (refer to project plans Sheet C‐3, Appendix A). According to the City’s Collection System Master Plan ‐ Final, the City’s existing collection system has sufficient capacity to convey current peak wet weather flows (p. 6‐1). Refer also to the related discussion in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities. Therefore, there would be no physical changes and no environmental impact.
Electric Power/Gas/Telecommunications. Pacific Gas and Electric provides electricity and natural gas to the project vicinity. Wireless internet service and cable television in the project vicinity are provided by companies such as AT&T and Xfinity. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and therefore, there would be no environmental impact.
b. The sole source of water supply for the City is groundwater and there are no new sources of supply currently planned. While long‐term impacts of Groundwater Sustainability Plan implementation in the Salinas Valley Basin remain uncertain, based on all available information, the groundwater supply is expected to be sufficient to support the City’s project water demand through 2045 (California Water Service 2021, p. 16). “Because of the demonstrated ability of the King City District to Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 89
meet historical demands from the underlying basin that are even greater than the projected demands, the available groundwater supplies are considered to be equal to projected District demands under all conditions (i.e., current and projected, and for normal, single dry, and multiple dry years including a five‐year drought period)” (California Water Service 2021, p. 74). Therefore, the proposed project will have sufficient water supplies available to serve its needs, and no physical changes would be necessary. There would be no environmental impact.
c. The City’s wastewater treatment facility has a design capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd). The proposed project would generate approximately 0.0003 mgd of wastewater, which makes up only 0.025 percent of the total design capacity for the facility. Refer also to checklist question “a.” Therefore, the proposed project’s wastewater generation would be adequately served by the City’s wastewater treatment facility, and no physical changes would be required. There would be no environmental impacts.
d, e. Solid waste from King City is currently transported to the Johnson Canyon Landfill facility east of the City of Gonzales. According to CalRecycle, the landfill has a remaining capacity of 6.9 million tons and is expected to serve until 2055 (CalRecycle 2021a).
The proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 30 employees, which have a disposal rate of 31.1 pounds per employee per day (CalRecycle 2021b).
This would result in approximately 933 pounds of solid waste generated by the project each day (30 employees x 31.1 pounds per employee per day), or 170 tons of solid waste generated each year. This makes up a small amount of the capacity remaining at the landfill and, therefore, the landfill has sufficient capacity to accept solid waste generated by the proposed project in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. No physical changes would be required and therefore, there would be no environmental impact.
In summary, the City’s utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. Thus, for purposes of the purposes of the infill categorical exemption found in section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project “site can be adequately served by all required utilities[.]”
Grocery Outlet
90 EMC Planning Group Inc.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Comments:
a‐d. The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (CalFire 2021). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in wildfire impacts and no further analysis is necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of
wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 91
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Comments:
a. As discussed throughout this environmental assessment, the proposed project has limited impacts, or potential impacts, on the environment. None of them rises to the level of being significant. Even so, a number of conditions of approval/project features are presented that add additional assurances that no significant environmental impacts would result. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment.
As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, due to the highly disturbed/developed condition of the site and the lack of suitable vegetation, special‐ status plant species and most special‐status animal species known to occur in the region are not expected to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable habitats.
The only trees located on the project site are found on its margins; however, these Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self‐sustaining levels;
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community; substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or
threatened species; or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects) (Refer to previous sections discussed
below.)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Grocery Outlet
92 EMC Planning Group Inc.
trees and others adjacent to the project site could provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for a wide variety of birds and special‐status bat species, and noise‐generating construction activities and/or vegetation removal could result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests. Even so, these consequences would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. Nevertheless, implementation of Conditions of Approval/Project Features presented in Section 4 would protect nesting birds and bats and ensure that any impact is eliminates or minimized and reduced as much as possible.
As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the archaeological records search did not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the project site and no cultural resources were observed during the pedestrian survey. However, significant archaeological or historic resources may be accidentally discovered during project grading or construction. King City standard, adopted conditions of approval would be implemented and reduce any potential impacts to a less‐than‐significant impact, as discussion in Section 5. With implementation of these standard conditions of approval, the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. The project’s potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts is presented below.
Air Quality. Section 3, Air Quality includes an evaluation of whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The analysis concluded that because the project’s pollutants are projected to be significantly below the air district’s thresholds (for both construction and operational emissions), the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants.
Biological Resources. As discussed in “a” above, the project has the potential to adversely affect nesting birds and roosting bats, should they be present on the project site during construction activities. However, with implementation of the Conditions of Approval/Project Features presented in Section 4, the project’s possible contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 93
Cultural Resources. As discussed in “a” above, the project has the potential to adversely affect unknown buried significant cultural resources. However, with implementation of the City’s adopted standard conditions of approval, the project’s incremental contribution to any larger potential cumulative effect from other past, present, and probable future projects would not be cumulatively considerable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. GHG impacts are discussed in Section 8, Greenhous Gas Emissions. The analysis concluded that the project’s impacts are not significant.
Indeed, the proposed project’s operational effects relating to vehicular emissions would be beneficial in that the proposed project will reduce VMT compared with existing baseline conditions. GHG emissions effects are not localized to areas where they are produced. Climate change is a global phenomenon resulting from the combined effects of GHG emissions produced worldwide. Consequently, the analysis of climate change impacts from production of GHGs is inherently cumulative in nature. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 219.) Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable GHG impacts.
Noise. The project (operations and construction) would contribute to the existing and cumulative future noise environment in King City. As discussed in Section 13, Noise, project operations would not exceed any of the City’s noise standards and would not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in noise levels above levels existing without the project. Also, project construction noise would not be significant, as construction activities are short‐term and would be limited to daytime house.
Additionally, the King City General Plan EIR evaluated operational and construction noise associated with general plan buildout (cumulative scenario) and concluded the impact would be less than significant (page 2‐42). Therefore, the project’s construction and operational noise would not be cumulatively considerable.
Transportation – Policy Consistency. The transportation impact analysis prepared for the proposed project’s consistency with City LOS policy (a non‐CEQA analysis) addressed cumulative transportation impacts (page 33, Appendix F), specifically related to the project’s cumulative contribution to intersections and the City’s standard level of service (LOS) C. The analysis identifies that the project would contribute to a cumulative effect at the Broadway St / Franciscan Way, which would result in an unacceptable LOS E (or an additional four‐second delay at this intersection). As discussed in the analysis, the project should contribute its fair share to the cost a traffic signal based on its pro rate share of future traffic, which is 18.9 percent of the future p.m. peak hour traffic growth at the Broadway Street / Franciscan Way intersection. With payment of this impact fee, the project would be consistent with General Plan policies. Because LOS is no longer a CEQA issue, there is no need to address whether the project’s contribution to LOS would be cumulatively considerable.
Grocery Outlet
94 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Transportation ‐ VMT. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the Grocery Outlet store’s most likely effect on regional travel would be to slightly reduce the length of trips from northern areas of King City and to offer another option for shopping trips made by residents of areas to the south and east. The effect on VMT is likely to be small, but generally VMT will be reduced by offering a closer option. This conclusion is consistent with the OPR presumption that the VMT effects of locally serving retail uses of 50,000 square feet or less may be considered to be less than significant. The proposed project’s impact on regional VMT can be presumed to be less than significant under the OPR Locally Serving Retail criteria. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and therefore, would not result in a cumulatively considerable VMT impact.
c. The project’s potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, is discussed below.
Air Quality. Section 3, Air Quality includes an evaluation of whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The analysis concluded that because the project’s pollutants are projected to be significantly below the air district’s thresholds (for both construction and operational emissions), the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings associated with air pollutants.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. GHG emissions have the potential to result in indirect health impacts to humans (e.g., rising temperatures, decreased water supply, diminished air quality, health effects and illness). GHG impacts are discussed in Section 8, Greenhous Gas Emissions. The analysis concluded that the project’s impacts are not significant and therefore, the project contribution to GHG emissions would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. These issues are addressed in Section 9. The analysis concluded that the project would result in no hazards and hazardous materials impacts and therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings associated with hazards and hazardous materials.
Water Quality/Pollution. These issues are addressed in Section 10. The analysis concluded that the project would no result in water quality impacts and therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings associated with water pollutants.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 95
22. EXCEPTIONS TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
As the preceding analysis has demonstrated, the proposed project qualifies for the Class 32 Infill Exemption. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines lists exceptions that would prohibit a project from qualifying for a Categorical Exemption, even if the project satisfies the requirements for one or more of the exemption classes. These exceptions are discussed below.
Exception: a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
Discussion. The project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption, which is not one of the specified classes of exemptions to which this exception applies. Therefore, the location exception does not apply to the project.
Exception: b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
Discussion. As the discussion of cumulative impacts above explains, there is no indication or substantial evidence that successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in cumulative impacts. Indeed, no successive projects of the same type in the same place are contemplated in the vicinity of the project or within King City.
Exception: c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
Discussion. Case law makes clear that application of this exception must proceed in two steps. The first is to determine whether a proposed project involves “unusual circumstances.” If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, the second step is to consider whether those unusual circumstances will give rise to potentially significant environmental effects. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, Grocery Outlet
96 EMC Planning Group Inc.
1097‐1105 (Berkeley Hillside.) As explained below, the proposed project does not involve any unusual circumstances with respect to its location, size, environmental setting, physical attributes, surrounding land uses, or planning context – factors considered relevant under case law. (See Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 1118–1119; San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1381; McQueen v. Bd. of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1149; Lewis v. Seventeenth Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 823, 828–829; City of Pasadena v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 810, 826–827; Bloom v. McGurk (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1315–1316; and Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1109.)
The proposed project (Grocery Outlet Store) is consistent with the King City General Plan land use designation of Highway Service Commercial (HSC), and the City’s zoning designation of Highway Service District (H‐S). The project site would be located on a highly‐ disturbed flat parcel surrounded by urban development within the city core of King City.
There is nothing unusual about the project site as a typical infill parcel and nothing unusual about the proposed project as a typical infill project. The project features (grocery store and associated parking) are typical project features that do not differ from other projects in infill exemption class 32. The closest residential uses are approximately 350 feet away behind a wall, and would not suffer significant noise impacts due to the proposed project.
There are no conditions in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would indicate unusual circumstances. The project site and immediate vicinity are flat, and the project site is surrounded by urban development within the city core of King City. Therefore, there are no unusual circumstances regarding conditions of the project site or in the immediate vicinity.
Exception: d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.
This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
Discussion. As discussed in Section 1, Aesthetics, the project site is located more than eight miles north of the nearest eligible state scenic highway, Highway 198 (California Department of Transportation 2021). Therefore, development of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Exception: e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 97
Discussion. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, according to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Exception f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Discussion. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, there are no above‐ground structures located on the project site, and there is no evidence in the record or from a surface reconnaissance that there are historical resources of an archaeological nature located on the project site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Grocery Outlet
98 EMC Planning Group Inc.
E. SOURCES
1. Project Plans 2021.
2. King City. November 1998. King City General Plan Consolidated Plan Document.
King City, CA. http://www.kingcity.com/wp‐content/uploads/2016/01/City‐of‐King‐ General‐Plan‐with‐2007‐2014‐Housing‐Element.pdf
3. King City. November 1998. King City General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number SCH 98081028. King City, CA.
4. King City Municipal Code. http://qcode.us/codes/kingcity/
5. Monterey County. “Parcel Report Web App.” Accessed on May 24, 2021. https://maps.co.monterey.ca.us/wab/parcelreportwebapp/
6. Google Earth. 2021.
7. California Department of Conservation. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed on May 24, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
8. CalFire. “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on May 24, 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
9. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2021. “EnviroStor Database.” Accessed May 26, 2021. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
10. Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission. 1972. Mesa Del Rey Airport Master Plan. King City, CA.
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/37931/63637107859 5770000
11. Monterey County. November 2020. County of Monterey Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. Salinas, CA.
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=97645
12. Salem Engineering Group. March 2021. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation – Proposed Retail Store Building, 1023 Broadway (APN: 026‐391‐025), King City, California.
Fresno, CA.
13. City of King City. February 2015. Stormwater Technical Guide for Low Impact Development – Compliance with Stormwater Post‐Construction Requirements in King City.
King City, CA. http://www.kingcity.com/wp‐content/uploads/2015/05/King‐City‐ Stormwater‐Technical‐Guide.pdf
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 99
14. EMC Planning Group. Biological reconnaissance survey. May 25, 2021.
15. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. California Natural Diversity Database. Records of occurrence for Thompson Canyon, Reliz Canyon, Paraiso Springs, Greenfield, Pinalito Canyon, San Lucas, Espinosa Canyon, Cosio Knob, and Bear Canyon USGS quadrangles. Sacramento, California.
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx
16. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Search‐Results?q=burrowing%20owl
17. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Records of occurrence for Thompson Canyon, Reliz Canyon, Paraiso Springs, Greenfield, Pinalito Canyon, San Lucas, Espinosa Canyon, Cosio Knob, and Bear Canyon USGS quadrangles. Sacramento, California.
https://rareplants.cnps.org/
18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Endangered Species Program. Species list for Monterey County. Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
19. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Online habitat mapper.
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4f e09893cf75b8dbfb77
20. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory. Online wetlands mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html
21. City of King. 1998. King City General Plan. Land Use Element: Section 3.4 (Biological Resources) and Section 5 (Open Space and Agricultural Lands Goals and Policies).
22. City of King. 2021. King City Municipal Code. Chapter 13.10: Street Trees. https://qcode.us/codes/kingcity/
23. Padre Associates. July 2021. Phase I Archaeological Study, 1023 South Broadway Street, King City, Monterey County, California. San Luis Obispo, CA.
24. California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed on July 26, 2021.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c4 6cc8e8057116f1aacaa
Grocery Outlet
100 EMC Planning Group Inc.
25. Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. June 2021. “Salinas Valley Basin GSA Upper Valley GSP Overview.” https://svbgsa.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2021/06/UpperValley_GSP‐overview.pdf
26. Apana. “How Grocery Stores Can Save Water.” Accessed on July 27, 2021. https://www.apana.com/how‐grocery‐stores‐can‐save‐water/
27. Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. July 2021. “Upper Valley Subbasin.” Accessed on July 27, 2021. https://svbgsa.org/upper‐valley‐subbasin/
28. California Water Service. June 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan – King City District. https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/KC_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf
29. King City. September 2017. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan – Final. King City, CA.
30. King City. September 2017. Collection System Master Plan – Final. King City, CA.
31. Site Investigation, May 25, 2021.
32. Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. January 2021. King City Roundabout Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. San Luis Obispo, CA.
33. Monterey County. September 2008. 2007 Monterey County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Salinas, CA.
34. Impact Sciences. 2010 City of King Downtown Addition Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Oakland, CA.
35. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. February 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Monterey, CA. Accessed September 10, 2021.
https://www.mbard.org/files/f665829d1/CEQA_full+%281%29.pdf
36. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2017. Air Quality Management Plan. Monterey, CA. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.mbard.org/air‐ quality‐plans
37. EMC Planning Group. 2021. CalEEMod Summary Memorandum.
38. California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. Accessed September 10, 2021.
39. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines _may2017‐pdf.pdf?la=en
Environmental Assessment
EMC Planning Group Inc. 101
40. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair‐
org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20 MemoTable1‐1_July2021%29_LinkedwithMemo.pdf
41. CalRecycle. “SWIS Facility /Site Activity Details – Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill (27‐AA‐0005).” Accessed on September 14, 2021a.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2636?siteID=1971
42. CalRecycle. “Disposal Rate Calculator – King City” Accessed on September 14, 2021b. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRate Calculator
43. California Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Discussion Draft, CEQA and Climate Change Advisory. Accessed on September 16, 2021. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20181228‐ Discussion_Draft_Climate_Change_Adivsory.pdf
44. California Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122‐ 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
45. KD Anderson & Associates. 2021. Transportation Impact Analysis for Grocery Outlet Store.
46. Salem Engineering Group. 2021. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Soil Assessment, Proposed Commercial Development, 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA.
47. WJV Acoustics. 2021. Acoustical Analysis Grocery Outlet Store 1023 Broadway Street King City, California.
Grocery Outlet
102 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
PROJECT PLANS
[iJ BUILDING NORTH (FRONT) ELEVATION
[3) BUILDING EAST (LEFT) ELEVATION
GENERAL NOTES
1 CEt.ENTPV.STERFINSHTOBELICHTTEXTI.RE.
2. ROOF MOl.JllTEOECUIPMENT <UNTS Sko\U. NOT BE VISIBLE FROM CROl.H)LEVEI> OR SKO.LL BE SCREEJl.EO PER Jl.RlSOICTION REOUREMENTS
UL N '.SN.JIM .S· IN AMNI ~
PIJrlN.Y VISIBLE FROM TI-£ STREET 12' MIN HCHCHAAACTERS WTI-131~ MIN STROKE. ON CONTRAS TINO BilCKCROUt() ANO IU.UMINA TEO AS RE CURED BY LOCAL FIRE ..lJRISCICTION u
EXTERIJR COLORS
-6. ~--"-t>
;,,4 P<
---~-
.,&,
ARCHITECT
SCOTIGBSOOARClfTECt.IHC,
574MANZA11ITAAVE.SUITEf9
Cll1CO,C\UFORMA9l!l6 PHONE:(Sll)343 - 7557
U)
oc z oo
ii: i= w<.:
~~ w _J
w
DAre:: o::uogJ:to2 1
A3
PREUMINARY SITE PLAN
1023 BROADWAY STREET
RESULT.!\NTPARCEL 1
KING CITY, CA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
RESULTANT
PARCEL!!!
:f).70AC
CGR/NETI
RESULTM'T
PARCEL3
:2.14AC
(GR/NE11
PROJECT SUMW..ARY
LS AXEA.?aovmm ::10,"96SFWSOPTOTAL
?ABCEIJ
ADD1..UA!CEA.?<."'E?DED:
:!.<41.!:SP'c;,Q
PRELIMINARY SITE PUN
RESULTANT PARCEL I
MARCH 3, 2021
1111
--TSO ENGIN EERl_;tf•
•.'.':1£:
78 5 O rchoard Sult:~ J""t10
Fol$0!'n, CA 95G,o
?ho..-.: (?16") • o&-0707
F~(9 6)608-~)701
SP-1
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
1023 BROADWAY STREET
RESULTANT PARCEL 1
KING CITY, CA
1r' Clmll CUT
I
APND21J.)91 -D2t 1-EARNEFRANKJETAL
SITE LEGEND
C:J JiUR;ll..TPA\&IENT
o ..,....,,...
CJ ~~~oosm«;
[:=J COtCkEraSttl ~1'J.$.
~ CONClEl'EPAVEMalr
~ BIO·RErl!NTION M;!Nstn..PliCI
\ ___ ~--------------,
--'\ LEGEND
--_r--
__J
.-
DESCRIPTION PROPOSED EXISTING
DESIGN EUVATION
llQ.50 lC
13Q.OO AC""" / (915..0) ff
CONTOUJt
STORM illlAlN - -<:!2::0 --
• " O~EllUAK
-"-
r:HD.LAKI>RELL\SE ... l.ANDSCAJ'EPl.OW .JV- D!ltECTION
20 " 20
PRELlMINARY GRADING PIAN
f
l RESULTANT PARCEL I f .------'AP:.:::..RI;.;...L_2~_202_1 ___ f ,_,_ i
,~T . SD NEER !':~a .'.:' S: t
~ 785 O r cti:u·d Drive, Su ite ..,110 ! Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (9,6) 608-0707
F.a,.;: (916) 608-0701
PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS
1023 BROADWAY STREET
RESULTANT PARCEL 1
KING CITY, CA
- ,. "' , .. "' ... ~
PU9UC SID!W-'UC """"'" """' ""' ,.,....,.. ... """"'" 110...0WAY l.EI'AIL sn= Ill' CURI RAMP ,.,..,.,. _.,,,. - .... .... ~
- I ----------· ------ - ---- - ---
EB GRADING SECTION 1CAU:i r • LCI
- - l. ... ~ "' ..Ir ,,,. 1'' 17.3' ~MICINC STALL ORM: MSU: ~T """'""' n 111\lOC DOC>< I
I I I
1.l!!AIL I
I
l.EI'AlL
... ,..., ,~ ..,.
I I
~ n I - ...... _________ _I .- ;:;==::
~ (~ 9tO-ftCTf)(T!Of j \ (') "'™""' ..... \. ~) eK>-ftt'mr(llCN EB GRADING SECTION E9 GRADING SECI'ION 1CAU:: r - 1a XAL&:l"• ICI "' - """' """ ,,... ~iH ~~
I l ErAIL
I , . ..,. .- I .- ---- -- -- ---- -- . - PRELIMINARY GRADING SECI'IONS
RESULTANT PARCEL I
APRIL 2, 2021
EB GRADING SECTION ,_,_ 1CAL1: r - 1a II TSD E N G I NEER ING, INC. el(po:c rr1or~ 7 8 5 O r cho:ir d D rive, Suite #"1 10
Fo lsom, CA 956 30
P h o n e: (916 ) 608-0 7 0 7
F .. 11.: ( 9 16) 608-0701
C-2
PRELIMINARY UTILlTY PLAN
1023 BROADWAY STREET
RESULTANT PARCEL I
KING CITY, CA
"PN02&-l91-02t
HEARNEFAANKJETAL
RESULTANT
PARCEL3
±2.14AC
(GR'NE'I)
LEGEND
~ ~
STORM OR.A.IN MANHOl..E • STORMOllAlNOllAJNINtn
DOMESTICWATDl
(1'lUVATE:)
FlJl.ESEkVICE(PlUVATr)
FDtEWATD.(l'R.NATI)
Mrl'Dl 6' V.CKFt.OW (U)
SA.CIO'LOW(OOCA)
FIR.I: DD'.UTMINi'
CDNNECTION
SEWD. (l'UIUCOR
PRIVATEASSHOWN)
-am-
-mv--
----Offi}-
_._
~
I""":]
-tiUTIUTYNOTES
~
-- c:ICiJ-- -
"'
1. 11£ snt LAYOUT IS roll ll..WST1'ATN[ PUIU'02S Q(LY AND II SU~ TO CKANGr:..
2. ALL CGS'TlNC Ul1UTY LOCA.TIC.ttS SMCNN ARE
"""'"""""' 3. TI![ ~ tm.111('5 AND INFRASiRUC'l\JRE SHOWN AR[ CONCU'TUAL otl..Y AND A11E tllJ9JteT TO RtVISION. '- TM£ PRCPOSm WA.itR AND SEW6t INFRASTRUC'n.JRE L.OCA.lla.. 00 SIZES ARE 5UBJECT TO OiAHG:E DURIHC ,,.....,,..,... sc.i.k:1"•:lri'
i111i1 'Ii i
PRELIMINARY UTILlTY PLAN
RESULTANT PARCEL I
APRIL 2, 2021
~
~
f
fj I
-'-TSD ENG I NEERI
eocpe
NG, dINC.
'"or C'. ~ t
PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS PLAN
1023 BROADWAY STREET
RESULTANT PARCEL 1
KING CITY, CA
RESULTANT
PARCEL2
±0.70AC
(GR/NET)
-- ~--
l
t
_ L ! j :::
,,,
r . Li - - -:r-... - - - - - - ·· - .. - --- ----- -~ ir --- - - --- - - - --- ----- - ---- --- --- - - -------- - - -- ----- - --- - - ---1 ...;.~ 11 11 ,;" /• l /, .·, =r ~ 1
'ir:U 1"·-~' ~· 1·I-i
1·
I
. APNa:l&-Jll-011
PETAKOVICHVEU WIRC.UU81Nl<ACO-TR8
"PN026-ll1·024
HEARNEFRANKJET AL
,,.,-- ~. -------- .... ----------
RESULTANT
PARCEL3
±2.14AC
(GR/NET)
~~l!,,= .. :~11 //
/
------
LEGEND
• DOMESrlC W ATD.
(PJJVATE)
---<ll!ll--- - - ~ -
FIUSlkVICE(PRJVATr) ---c!!lf--
FIR£ WATD.(PJ.NATE) ~
... ., Mr!D. Ol IACKPLOW (l.P) ~
IACm.cw(DDc:.\) ~
~~~AA.6~~ >+fr
•
UTIUTYN01ES
1. TM! $M? L.AYOJT 1S roll: llJJS'T1'ATIV!: PURPOStS ONLY AND IS IUIJ.ECT Ttl QWIGt.
2. AU. ElGSTlNC UTIUTY l.OCATICJ.jS SHOWN ME
"""'°""""' 3. Tiii!: ~CPORD UllJl19 AND t1'1U.S'TlruC1U~ IHOllt4 ME CONCUT\JAL OHL Y AND AAE 5l.ll9J[CT '!ti ~ON.
'- TM£ PROPOSED WATiR AND SE'GR 1NrRASTRUClUR£ LOCATION AHO SIZES ME SUBJ!CT TO CH~ OUA!Ne '1NAL DtsQl 'ka-11 ·r i i j
I
PRELIMINARY F1RE ACCESS PLAN ~ RESULTANT PARCEL! j
...-~~~-AP~RIL~-~~20~2_1~~~--tJ
PREUMINARYSTORM\VATERCONIROLPLAN
1023 BROADWAY STREET
RESULTANTPARCEL 1
DMA #3
KING CITY, CA
DMA #2 AJIJ!A ~,7MU' (0.03AQ
DMA TI'l'lt • DRAIN' TO '0£ 'tnlrAC%n'l'lt · ....,l'HALT ---
.I
sc.:t.fC: 1·.-;m'
10 20
1 PRELIMINARY j STORMWATERCONTROLPI.AN t RESULTANT PARCEL I ~ APRIL 2, 2021 ~
i
,_,_ t
,,TSD ENG NEERl !':~& S: l
785 Ol"ChO>l"d D l"lvc, Suite "'110 t Folsom, CA 95630
Ph one: ( 9 16) 608-0707
Fax: (916) 608-0701
APPENDIX B
CALEEMOD RESULTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Teri Wissler Adam,
From: Sally Rideout, EMPA, Principal Planner
Cc: John Thomason, Senior Planner
Date: September 13, 2021
Re: Grocery Outlet – CalEEMod Emissions Assessment, Methodology and Assumptions
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is construction and operations of an 18,187 square foot supermarket located on 1.6-acre site located in the City of King in southern Monterey County. The project site is currently vacant. The proposed project includes a 72-space parking lot and landscaping.
Construction activity is anticipated to start in the spring of 2022 and end in the fall of 2022.
The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin, which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air District (air district). An initial study is being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
This assessment provides assumptions, methodology, and an estimate of the proposed project’s construction and operational criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4 software, a modeling platform recommended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and accepted by the air district. The model results will inform the CEQA initial study discussion of air quality impacts.
Teri Wissler Adam
EMC Planning Group
September 13, 2021, Page 2
MEMORANDUM
Emissions Model
CalEEMod estimates construction emissions associated with land use development projects and allows for the input of project-specific construction information including phasing and equipment information. CalEEMod was used to estimate annual emissions for on-site and offsite construction activity. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off-site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The CalEEMod software utilizes emissions models USEPA AP-42 emission factors, CARB vehicle emission models studies and studies commissioned by other California agencies.
CalEEMod is capable of estimating changes in the carbon sequestration potential of a site based on changes in natural vegetation communities and the net number of new trees that would be planted as part of the project. The project site consists of grassland. There are no trees on the site. Information regarding the number of trees that would be planted on the site was not available at the time of this assessment.
Proposed Emissions Sources
Unless otherwise noted, construction and operational criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions volumes are based primarily on the model’s default emissions factors for the land uses and size metrics presented in Table 1, Project Characteristics.
Table 1 Project Characteristics
Project Components CalEEMod Land Use1 Proposed
Grocery Outlet Building Supermarket 18,187 Square Feet
Surface Parking Lot and Loading
Areas
Parking Lot 72 spaces with 41,013
Square Feet
PavementLandscaping2 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 15,908 Square Feet SOURCE: Trinity Consultants 2017, Rockwood Pacific 2020.
NOTES:
1. CalEEMod default land use subtype. Descriptions of the model default land use categories and subtypes are found in the User’s Guide for CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide
2. Landscaping is included in total acreage to capture construction emissions.
Teri Wissler Adam
EMC Planning Group
September 13, 2021, Page 3
MEMORANDUM
Methodology
Modeling was performed using the CalEEMod defaults based on the size metrics presented in Table 1. Model results are attached. Unless otherwise noted, data inputs to the model take into account the type and size of the proposed uses, utilizing CalEEMod default emissions factors for construction and operations based on the information provided in the project plans (SGA Architect 2021).
Modeling Scenarios
Two model scenarios are used in this assessment; unmitigated and mitigated emissions.
The proposed project scenario assumes that the project will be fully operational in the year 2023.
Model adjustments are made in this scenario to account for regulatory requirements for the control of construction dust and compliance with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The adjustments are discussed in greater detail in the operational emissions data inputs below.
Assumptions
Unless otherwise noted, data inputs for the model scenarios are based on the following primary assumptions:
1. The assumed construction start date for the proposed project is February 1, 2022.
2. The assumed operational year for modeling purposes is 2023 (CalEEMod requires an operational year after the year construction is completed).
3. Construction and operational emissions generated by the proposed project are estimated using the following CalEEMod default land use subtypes:
a. “Supermarket”, defined as free-standing retail stores selling a complete assortment of food: food preparation and wrapping materials; and household, cleaning items;
b. “Parking Lot”, defined as a typical single surface parking lot typically covered with asphalt. This land use will require lighting; and
c. “Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces” which include landscaping on the site in order to capture construction emissions during site preparation and grading.
Teri Wissler Adam
EMC Planning Group
September 13, 2021, Page 4
MEMORANDUM
Operational Emissions Data Input
The proposed project model run includes unmitigated operational emissions including adjustments made to account for project compliance with the State requirements for Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), and air district recommendations for the use of low-VOC solvents and paint on architectural surfaces.
Each air district (or county) assigns trip lengths for urban, suburban, and rural settings, which are incorporated into the CalEEMod defaults. The model’s defaults were set to “suburban” and the jurisdictional authority parameters are based on the model defaults for the air district.
Construction Emissions Data Inputs
CalEEMod default construction parameters allow estimates of short-term construction emissions based upon empirical data collected and analyzed by the California Air Resources Board. The CalEEMod program allows modeling of construction emissions associated with land use development projects and allows for the input of project-specific construction information including phasing and equipment information, if known. The number and type of equipment was not yet known in detail sufficient to modify the model; therefore, the number and type of construction equipment is based on the model default construction equipment by phase.
Carbon Sequestration Potential Data Inputs
CalEEMod estimates a one-time only change in sequestration potential resulting from changes in natural communities. The proposed project would remove approximately 1.6 acres of grassland. Grassland is identified as a natural community with carbon sequestration value in the model; therefore, an estimate of the one-time loss in carbon sequestration value attributable to the loss of grassland is included in this assessment.
RESULTS
Criteria air pollutant emissions results are reported in tons per year. GHG construction and operational emissions results are reported on an annual basis in MT CO2e. Detailed model results for criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions are attached to this memorandum.
Teri Wissler Adam
EMC Planning Group
September 13, 2021, Page 5
MEMORANDUM
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Table 2, Unmitigated Construction and Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions, presents the modeled results for construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions in pounds per day.
Table 2 Unmitigated Construction and Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions
Source
Reactive
Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Suspended
Particulates
(PM10)
Total Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Construction 2022 27.89 17.01 7.91 4.13 14.38
Winter Operations 8.12 8.41 7.85 2.15 58.64
Summer Operations 8.77 7.29 7.85 2.15 50.67
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
NOTES:
1. Results may vary due to rounding.
2. Expressed in pounds per day.
GHG Emissions
Construction GHG Emissions
From the CalEEMod results, unmitigated construction GHG Emissions would be 243.12 MT CO2e. When averaged over a 30-year operational lifetime, the annual amortized emissions equal
8.10 MT CO2e per year.
Operational GHG Emissions
The model results for unmitigated annual GHG emissions generated by the proposed project under the “Baseline Scenario” are attached to this memorandum. The model results indicate that at buildout, the proposed project would generate annual unmitigated operational GHG emissions of 1,148.93 MT CO2e. Unmitigated annual GHG emissions volume estimates are summarized in Table 3, Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions.
Table 3 Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Source MT CO2e
Area 0.003
Teri Wissler Adam
EMC Planning Group
September 13, 2021, Page 6
MEMORANDUM
Energy 92.13
Mobile 1,001.00
Solid Waste 51.59
Water 4.21
Total 1,148.93
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
NOTES:
Results may vary due to rounding.
Expressed in tons per year.
Carbon Sequestration Potential
Model results indicating the change in carbon sequestration potential on the project site are shown in Section 2.3 of the modeled annual results. The model estimates a loss of 6.9 MT CO2e sequestration potential from the conversion of a natural grassland community. Averaged over a 30-year lifetime, the annual loss in carbon sequestration potential associated with the proposed project would be 0.23 MT CO2e per year. This amount is added to the project’s annual operational GHG emissions.
Net Unmitigated GHG Emissions at Buildout
The GHG emissions that would be attributable to the proposed project at buildout consists of amortized construction emissions added to the operational emissions and the amortized annual loss in carbon sequestration potential on the site. The sum of unmitigated GHG emissions attributable to the proposed project at buildout are presented in Table 4, Net Unmitigated Annual GHG Emissions Attributable to the Project.
Table 4 Net Unmitigated Annual GHG Emissions Attributable to the Project Operational
Emissions
Amortized
Construction
Emissions
Total Annual
Project Emissions
Carbon
Sequestration
Potential
Net Project
Emissions
1,148.93 8.10 1,157.03 0.23 1,157.26
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2020
NOTE: Results may vary due to rounding.
Teri Wissler Adam
EMC Planning Group
September 13, 2021, Page 7
MEMORANDUM
SOURCES
1. Breeze Software. May 2021. California Emissions Estimator (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.
Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home
2. Breeze Software. May 2021. CalEEMod User’s Guide (Version 2020.4). Available online at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide
3. SGA Architect. March 9, 2021. Project Plans Proposed New Building Parcel #1 1023 Broadway Street King City California.
4. Anderson, Kenneth D. P.E., KDAnderson & Associates, Inc. Email communication, August 16, 2021.
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:41 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0 Parking Lot 72.00 Space 0.65 41,013.00 0
Supermarket 18.19 1000sqft 0.42 18,190.00
Grocery Outlet King City
Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
0.004
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Land Use - Ladnscaped areas are called out as Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces to capture site prep and grading emissionsParking Lot area based on project plans SGA Architect_030921Construction Phase - Vacant site no demoAdjusted per application information CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.033 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2023Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 53 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 15.91 1000sqft 0.37 15,910.00 Land Use Change - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Default reductions for the air districtMobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Low VOC Paints are recommended by the Air DistrictWater Mitigation - Assumes Compliance with State MWELO CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:41 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 1.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/10/2023 12/14/2022 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/2/2022 2/3/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/28/2022 12/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/8/2022 2/9/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/27/2022 11/30/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/13/2022 11/16/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/28/2022 2/1/2022 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 28,800.00 41,013.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/14/2022 11/17/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/1/2022 2/2/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/9/2022 2/10/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/3/2022 2/4/2022
N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
2,533.5536
0.6481 0.0469 2,533.5536
Maximum 27.8935 17.0085 14.3789 0.0270 7.1647 0.8386 7.9076 3.4465 0.7835 4.1299 0.0000 2022 27.8935 17.0085 14.3789 0.0270 7.1647 0.8386 7.9076 3.4465 0.7835 4.1299 0.0000 2,510.5991 2,510.5991 2,510.5991 2,510.5991 0.6481 0.0469
2.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:41 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
0.4862 1.0000e004 0.0108
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
130.8038 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
6.0000e005 0.0247
Energy 0.0120 0.1090 0.0916 6.5000e004 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e- 003
4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0232 0.0232 005 Area 4.0000e-005 9,031.8661
0.8193 0.5244 8,900.2602
Total 8.7703 7.2923 50.6747 0.0864 7.7554 0.0905 7.8459 2.0686 0.0850 2.1536 Mobile 8.2721 7.1832 50.5724 0.0857 7.7554 0.0821 7.8376 2.0686 0.0767 2.1453 8,723.5013 8,723.5013 8,854.3284 8,854.3284 0.8218 0.5268
PM2.5 Total
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
50.5724 0.0857
8,723.5013 8,723.5013 0.8193 0.5244 8,900.2602
CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 8.2721 7.1832 50.5724 0.0857 7.7554 0.0821 7.8376 2.0686 0.0767 2.1453 Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2 5
Exhaust
PM2 5
Annual VMT
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT
0.5244 8,900.2602
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Unmitigated 8.2721 7.1832 7.7554 0.0821 7.8376 2.0686 0.0767 2.1453 8,723.5013 8,723.5013 0.8193 2,595,100
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Total 1,942.33 3,230.91 3,028.09 2,595,100
Supermarket 1,942.33 3,230.91 3028.09 2,595,100 2,595,100 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:41 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2
Supermarket 9.50 7.30 7.30 6.50 74.50 19.00 34 30 36
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.001330 0.003956
Supermarket 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229 0.000594 0.027829 0.001330 0.003956
0.000594 0.027829 0.001330 0.003956
Parking Lot 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229 0.000594 0.027829
0.0120 0.1090 0.0916
N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
130.8038 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0120 0.1090 0.0916 6.5000e004 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e- 003
8.2800e003 8.2800e- 003 6.5000e- 130.8038 130.8038 004 8.2800e- 003 NaturalGas 8.2800e-003 Mitigated CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non-Asphalt 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
130.8038 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 1111.83 0.0120 0.1090 0.0916 6.5000e004 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e-003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 8.2800e- 131.5811 003 0.0916 6.5000e- 8.2800e-003 130.8038 004 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 Total 0.0120 0.1090 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:41 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM2.5
NaturalGa PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non-Asphalt 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
130.8038 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 1.11183 0.0120 0.1090 0.0916 6.5000e004 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e-003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
6.0 Area Detail
8.2800e003 0.0916 6.5000e- 8.2800e-003 130.8038 004 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 Total 0.0120 0.1090 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaUse Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential InteriorUse Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2
0.0232 0.0232 6.0000e005 0.0247
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.4862 1.0000e004 0.0108 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e-005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005
6.0000e005 0.0247
6.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated
4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0232 0.0232 005 Unmitigated 0.4862 1.0000e- 4.0000e-005 004 0.0108 Architectural 0.0000 0.0000
Coating
0.0758
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4094 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:41 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
1.0000e003 1.0000e- 004 0.0108
0.0232 0.0232 6.0000e005 0.0247
6.0000e005 0.0247
Total 0.4862 1.0000e004 0.0108 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e-005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005
4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0232 0.0232 005 Landscaping 4.0000e-005
0.0758
N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4094 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Coating
6.0000e005 0.0247
Total 0.4862 1.0000e004 0.0108 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e-005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005
4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0232 0.0232 005 Landscaping 1.0000e- 4.0000e-005 003 1.0000e- 004 0.0108
0.0232 0.0232 6.0000e005 0.0247
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:48 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0 Parking Lot 72.00 Space 0.65 41,013.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 15.91 1000sqft 0.37 15,910.00 Grocery Outlet King City
Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Winter
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
0.004
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Land Use - Ladnscaped areas are called out as Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces to capture site prep and grading emissionsParking Lot area based on project plans SGA Architect_030921Construction Phase - Vacant site no demoAdjusted per application information CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.033 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2023Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 53 Supermarket 18.19 1000sqft 0.42 18,190.00
Land Use Change - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Default reductions for the air districtMobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Low VOC Paints are recommended by the Air DistrictWater Mitigation - Assumes Compliance with State MWELO CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:48 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 1.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 28,800.00 41,013.00
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
2022 27.8948 17.0148 14.3733 0.8386 4.0121 1.5629
N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
2,498.0757 2,498.0757 0.6485 0.0481 2,521.4215
0.6485 0.0481 2,521.4215
Maximum 27.8948 17.0148 14.3733 0.0268 3.2693 0.8386 4.0121 1.5629 0.7835 2.2463 0.0000
0.0268 3.2693 0.7835 2.2463 0.0000 2,498.0757 2,498.0757
2.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated Operational
0.4862 1.0000e004 0.0108
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
130.8038 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
6.0000e005 0.0247
Energy 0.0120 0.1090 0.0916 6.5000e004 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e- 003
4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0232 0.0232 005 Area 4.0000e-005 8,722.0823
0.9808 0.5829 8,590.4764
Total 8.1220 8.4052 58.6436 0.0831 7.7554 0.0906 7.8460 2.0686 0.0851 2.1537 Mobile 7.6237 8.2961 58.5412 0.0824 7.7554 0.0822 7.8377 2.0686 0.0768 2.1454 8,392.2585 8,392.2585 8,523.0856 8,523.0856 0.9834 0.5853
PM2.5 Total
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2 5
Exhaust
PM2 5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:48 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
58.5412 0.0824
8,392.2585 8,392.2585 0.9808 0.5829 8,590.4764
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 7.6237 8.2961 58.5412 0.0824 7.7554 0.0822 7.8377 2.0686 0.0768 2.1454 Annual VMT
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT
0.5829 8,590.4764
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Unmitigated 7.6237 8.2961 7.7554 0.0822 7.8377 2.0686 0.0768 2.1454 8,392.2585 8,392.2585 0.9808 2,595,100
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Total 1,942.33 3,230.91 3,028.09 2,595,100
Supermarket 1,942.33 3,230.91 3028.09 2,595,100 2,595,100 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2
Supermarket 9.50 7.30 7.30 6.50 74.50 19.00 34 30 36
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.001330 0.003956
Supermarket 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229 0.000594 0.027829 0.001330 0.003956
0.000594 0.027829 0.001330 0.003956
Parking Lot 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229 0.000594 0.027829 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:48 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
0.0120 0.1090 0.0916
130.8038 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0120 0.1090 0.0916 6.5000e004 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e- 003
8.2800e003 8.2800e- 003 6.5000e- 130.8038 130.8038 004 8.2800e- 003 NaturalGas 8.2800e-003 Mitigated CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non-Asphalt 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
130.8038 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 1111.83 0.0120 0.1090 0.0916 6.5000e004 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e-003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 8.2800e- 131.5811 003 0.0916 6.5000e- 8.2800e-003 130.8038 004 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 Total 0.0120 0.1090 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non-Asphalt 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
130.8038 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 1.11183 0.0120 0.1090 0.0916 6.5000e004 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e- 003 8.2800e-003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:48 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 130.8038 2.5100e003 2.4000e- 003 131.5811
6.0 Area Detail
8.2800e003 0.0916 6.5000e- 8.2800e-003 130.8038 004 8.2800e-003 8.2800e- 003 Total 0.0120 0.1090 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaUse Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential InteriorUse Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2
0.0232 0.0232 6.0000e005 0.0247
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.4862 1.0000e004 0.0108 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e-005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005
6.0000e005 0.0247
6.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated
4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0232 0.0232 005 Unmitigated 0.4862 1.0000e- 4.0000e-005 004 0.0108 Architectural 0.0000 0.0000
Coating
0.0758
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
1.0000e003 1.0000e- 004 0.0108
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4094 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0232 0.0232 6.0000e005 0.0247
6.0000e005 0.0247
Total 0.4862 1.0000e004 0.0108 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e-005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005
4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0232 0.0232 005 Landscaping 4.0000e-005
0.0758
N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:48 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Consumer 0.0000 0.0000
Products
0.4094 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
6.0000e005 0.0247
Total 0.4862 1.0000e004 0.0108 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e-005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005
4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 0.0232 0.0232 005 Landscaping 1.0000e- 4.0000e-005 003 1.0000e- 004 0.0108
0.0232 0.0232 6.0000e005 0.0247
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0 Parking Lot 72.00 Space 0.65 41,013.00 0
Supermarket 18.19 1000sqft 0.42 18,190.00
Grocery Outlet King City
Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
0.004
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Land Use - Ladnscaped areas are called out as Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces to capture site prep and grading emissionsParking Lot area based on project plans SGA Architect_030921Construction Phase - Vacant site no demoAdjusted per application information CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.033 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2023Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 53 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 15.91 1000sqft 0.37 15,910.00 Land Use Change - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Default reductions are for MBARDMobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Low VOC Paints are recommended by the Air DistrictWater Mitigation - Assumes Compliance with State MWELO CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 1.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/10/2023 12/14/2022
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/2/2022 2/3/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/28/2022 12/1/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/8/2022 2/9/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/27/2022 11/30/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/13/2022 11/16/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/28/2022 2/1/2022 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 28,800.00 41,013.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/14/2022 11/17/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/1/2022 2/2/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/9/2022 2/10/2022tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/3/2022 2/4/2022 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
2.1 Overall ConstructionUnmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
243.1244
0.0366 4.3400e003 243.1244
Maximum 0.3276 1.4298 1.4760 2.8500e003 0.0533 0.0645 0.1177 0.0188 0.0621 0.0809 0.0000
2.8500e- 0.0621 0.0809 0.0000 240.9157 240.9157
003
2022 0.3276 1.4298 1.4760 0.0533 0.0645 0.1177 0.0188
240.9157 240.9157 0.0366 4.3400e003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
2022 0.3276 1.4298 1.4760 0.0420 0.0645 0.1065 0.0133
N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
ROG NOx CO SO2
240.9154 240.9154 0.0366 4.3400e003 243.1242
0.0366 4.3400e003 243.1242
Maximum 0.3276 1.4298 1.4760 2.8500e003 0.0420 0.0645 0.1065 0.0133 0.0621 0.0755 0.0000
2.8500e- 0.0621 0.0755 0.0000 240.9154 240.9154
003
0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.11 0.00 9.54 28.89 0.00 6.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
3 8-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.3282 0.3282
2 5-1-2022 7-31-2022 0.4950 0.49501 2-1-2022 4-30-2022 0.4894 0.4894
0.00 0.00
2.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Highest 0.4950 0.4950
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.6300e003 2.6300e- 003 Area 0.0887 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 005 1.3500e- 003 Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mobile 0.9786 1.0057 6.8791 0.0106 0.9761 0.2582
91.3143 91.3143 0.0117 1.7600e003 92.1318
1.0000e005 0.0000 2.8100e- 003
Energy 2.1900e003 0.0199 0.0167 1.2000e- 004 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e-003 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e- 003 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 20.8248 1.2307 0.0000 51.5927
0.1053 0.0650 1,000.9908
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.8248
9.8500e003 0.0106 0.9656 0.2681 0.0000 978.9933 978.9933 1,071.4552 1,092.9914 1.4209 0.0685 1,148.9265
0.0733 1.7500e003 4.2084
Total 1.0694 1.0256 6.8972 0.0107 0.9656 0.0121 0.9777 0.2582 0.0114 0.2696 21.5362 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7114 1.1450 1.8564
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
1.0000e005 0.0000 2.8100e- 003
Energy 2.1900e003 0.0199 0.0167 1.2000e- 004 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e-003 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e- 003 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6300e003 2.6300e- 003 Area 0.0887 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 005 1.3500e- 003 Mobile 0.9786 1.0057 6.8791 0.0106 0.9656 0.0106 0.9761 0.2582 978.9933 978.9933
91.3143 91.3143 0.0117 1.7600e003 92.1318
Water 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 20.8248 1.2307 0.0000 51.5927
0.1053 0.0650 1,000.9908
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.8248
9.8500e003 0.2681 0.0000
1,071.4539 1,092.9901 1.4209 0.0685 1,148.9251
0.0733 1.7500e003 4.2070
Total 1.0694 1.0256 6.8972 0.0107 0.9656 0.0121 0.9777 0.2582 0.0114 0.2696 21.5362
0.0000 0.0000 0.7114 1.1437 1.8550
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2
0.00 0.00 0.00
2.3 VegetationVegetation
N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Vegetation Land
Change
-6.8960
Total -6.8960
CO2e
Category MT
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.9786 1.0057 6.8791 0.0106 0.9656 0.0106 0.9761 0.2582 9.8500e003 0.2681 Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
0.1053 0.0650 1,000.9908
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
1,000.9908
Unmitigated 0.9786 1.0057 6.8791 0.0106 0.9656 0.0106 0.9761 0.2582 9.8500e003 0.2681 0.0000 978.9933 978.9933
0.0000 978.9933 978.9933 0.1053 0.0650
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Supermarket 1,942.33 3,230.91 3028.09 2,595,100 2,595,100 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by 2,595,100
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Total 1,942.33 3,230.91 3,028.09 2,595,100
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2
Supermarket 9.50 7.30 7.30 6.50 74.50 19.00 34 30 36
0.000594 0.027829 0.001330 0.003956
Parking Lot 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229 0.000594 0.027829 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
0.001330 0.003956
Supermarket 0.506503 0.051891 0.195413 0.154205 0.030404 0.007208 0.010263 0.009176 0.001229 0.000594 0.027829 0.001330 0.003956 Electricity 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
2.1900e003 0.0199 0.0167
69.6582 69.6582 0.0113 1.3700e003 70.3470
0.0113 1.3700e003 70.3470
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 69.6582 69.6582
21.6560 21.6560 4.2000e004 4.0000e- 004 21.7847
4.2000e004 4.0000e- 004 21.7847
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
2.1900e003 0.0199 0.0167 1.2000e- 004 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e-003 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e- 003 0.0000
1.5100e003 1.5100e- 003 1.2000e- 0.0000 21.6560 21.6560 004 1.5100e- 003 NaturalGas 1.5100e-003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigated
NaturalGas
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non-Asphalt 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
21.6560 21.6560 4.2000e004 4.0000e- 004 21.7847
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 405819 2.1900e003 0.0199 0.0167 1.2000e- 004 1.5100e-003 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e-003 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
21.6560 4.2000e004 4.0000e- 004 1.5100e- 21.7847 003 0.0167 1.2000e- 1.5100e-003 0.0000 21.6560 004 1.5100e-003 1.5100e- 003 Total 2.1900e- 003 0.0199 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Mitigated
NaturalGas
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Non-Asphalt 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
21.6560 21.6560 4.2000e004 4.0000e- 004 21.7847
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 405819 2.1900e003 0.0199 0.0167 1.2000e- 004 1.5100e-003 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e- 003 1.5100e-003 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
21.6560 4.2000e004 4.0000e- 004 21.7847
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
1.5100e003 0.0167 1.2000e- 1.5100e-003 0.0000 21.6560 004 1.5100e-003 1.5100e- 003 Total 2.1900e- 003 0.0199 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
3.0000e005 1.3413
Supermarket 738514 68.3301 0.0111 1.3400e003 69.0058
Parking Lot 14354.5 1.3281 2.1000e004
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1.3700e003 70.3470
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 69.6582 0.0113
1.3700e003 70.3470
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaUse Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior Total 69.6582 0.0113
3.0000e005 1.3413
Supermarket 738514 68.3301 0.0111 1.3400e003 69.0058
Parking Lot 14354.5 1.3281 2.1000e004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
0.0887 1.0000e005 1.3500e- 003
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
2.6300e003 2.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8100e- 003
1.0000e005 0.0000 2.8100e- 003
Unmitigated 0.0887 1.0000e005 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6300e003 2.6300e- 003 Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0138
N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
6.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.0747 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
2.8100e003
1.0000e005 0.0000 2.8100e- 003
Total 0.0887 1.0000e005 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6300e003 2.6300e- 003 Landscaping 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003 Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
2.6300e003 2.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000
N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Architectural 0.0000 0.0000
Coating
0.0138
1.3000e004 1.0000e- 005 1.3500e- 003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.0747 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2.6300e003 2.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8100e- 003
1.0000e005 0.0000 2.8100e- 003
Total 0.0887 1.0000e005 1.3500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.6300e003 2.6300e- 003 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.8550 0.0733 1.7500e003 4.2070
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterUse Water Efficient Irrigation System Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4.2084
7.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 1.8564 0.0733 1.7500e003
1.7500e003 4.2084
Mitigated
Total 1.8564 0.0733
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 2.24225 /
0.0693479
1.8564 0.0733 1.7500e003 4.2084
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 2.24225 /
0.0651177
1.8550 0.0733 1.7500e003 4.2070
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
ton
MT/yr
Mitigated 20.8248 1.2307 0.0000 51.5927
Total CO2 CH4 N2O
1.7500e003 4.2070
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Total 1.8550 0.0733
51.5927
8.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 20.8248 1.2307 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 51.5927
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 20.8248 1.2307
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 102.59 20.8248 1.2307 0.0000 51.5927
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 102.59 20.8248 1.2307 0.0000 51.5927
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 20.8248 1.2307 0.0000 51.5927
11.0 Vegetation
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category t
on
MT
Unmitigated -6.8960 0.0000 0.0000 -6.8960
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 9/13/2021 2:38 PM
Grocery Outlet King City - Monterey Bay Unified APCD Air District, Annual Emissions EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.1 Vegetation Land ChangeVegetation Type
Initial/Final Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total -6.8960 0.0000 0.0000 -6.8960
Acres t
on
MT
Grassland 1.6 / 0 -6.8960 0.0000 0.0000 -6.8960
Appendix #
Grocery Outlet Fuel Demand
EMFAC 2020.1
vehicle_class fuel process emission Operational Year 2023 Dsl Fuel Demand Dsl Fuel Demand
kgal/day gal/year
5.63E-02 2.06E+04
All Other Buses Dsl IDLEX 3.22E-06 Gas Fuel Demand Gas Fuel Demand All Other Buses Dsl RUNEX 0.000351 kgal/day gal/year
LDA Dsl RUNEX 0.000368 0.277050321 101123.3672
LDT1 Dsl RUNEX 3.36E-06
LDT2 Dsl RUNEX 0.000204 Phe Fuel Demand Phe Fuel Demand LHD1 Dsl IDLEX 4.24E-05 kgal/day gal/year
LHD1 Dsl RUNEX 0.007155 0.001626736 593.7585974
LHD2 Dsl IDLEX 2.65E-05
LHD2 Dsl RUNEX 0.003495 Total fuel demand
MDV Dsl RUNEX 0.00101 gallons per year 1.22E+05
MH Dsl RUNEX 0.000196
Motor Coach Dsl IDLEX 4.44E-05
Motor Coach Dsl RUNEX 0.001074 Annual VMT 2595100
PTO Dsl RUNEX 0.001048 (From CalEEMod)
SBUS Dsl IDLEX 0.000103
SBUS Dsl RUNEX 0.001177 Total Fuel Demand
T6 CAIRP Class 4Dsl IDLEX 9.42E-08 (annual gal/year)
T6 CAIRP Class 4Dsl RUNEX 1.19E-05 1.22E+05
T6 CAIRP Class 5Dsl IDLEX 1.27E-07
T6 CAIRP Class 5Dsl RUNEX 1.63E-05 Mileage check
T6 CAIRP Class 6Dsl IDLEX 3.89E-07 2.13E+01 21.3 mpg
T6 CAIRP Class 6Dsl RUNEX 4.18E-05
T6 CAIRP Class 7Dsl IDLEX 6.81E-07
T6 CAIRP Class 7Dsl RUNEX 0.000248
T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Dsl IDLEX 1.62E-05
T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Dsl RUNEX 0.000305
T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 7.43E-06
T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 0.000139
T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 2.59E-05
T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 0.000493
T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 5.37E-06
T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 0.000157
T6 Instate Other Class 4 Dsl IDLEX 6.26E-05
T6 Instate Other Class 4 Dsl RUNEX 0.001279
T6 Instate Other Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 0.000106
T6 Instate Other Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 0.002389
T6 Instate Other Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 8.35E-05
T6 Instate Other Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 0.001777
T6 Instate Other Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 6.27E-05
T6 Instate Other Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 0.001385
1 Appendix #
Grocery Outlet Fuel Demand
EMFAC 2020.1
T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 5.29E-07
T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 1.39E-05
T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 2.30E-05
T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 0.000685
T6 OOS Class 4 Dsl IDLEX 4.96E-08
T6 OOS Class 4 Dsl RUNEX 6.19E-06
T6 OOS Class 5 Dsl IDLEX 6.65E-08
T6 OOS Class 5 Dsl RUNEX 8.48E-06
T6 OOS Class 6 Dsl IDLEX 2.04E-07
T6 OOS Class 6 Dsl RUNEX 2.18E-05
T6 OOS Class 7 Dsl IDLEX 3.36E-07
T6 OOS Class 7 Dsl RUNEX 0.000149
T6 Public Class 4Dsl IDLEX 7.37E-06
T6 Public Class 4Dsl RUNEX 9.06E-05
T6 Public Class 5Dsl IDLEX 9.95E-06
T6 Public Class 5Dsl RUNEX 0.000129
T6 Public Class 6Dsl IDLEX 8.87E-06
T6 Public Class 6Dsl RUNEX 0.000115
T6 Public Class 7Dsl IDLEX 2.02E-05
T6 Public Class 7Dsl RUNEX 0.000334
T6 Utility Class 5Dsl IDLEX 2.61E-06
T6 Utility Class 5Dsl RUNEX 7.12E-05
T6 Utility Class 6Dsl IDLEX 4.96E-07
T6 Utility Class 6Dsl RUNEX 1.34E-05
T6 Utility Class 7Dsl IDLEX 5.65E-07
T6 Utility Class 7Dsl RUNEX 1.87E-05
T7 CAIRP Class 8Dsl IDLEX 0.000527
T7 CAIRP Class 8Dsl RUNEX 0.00682
T7 NNOOS Class 8Dsl IDLEX 0.000573
T7 NNOOS Class 8Dsl RUNEX 0.008044
T7 NOOS Class 8Dsl IDLEX 0.000244
T7 NOOS Class 8Dsl RUNEX 0.002922
T7 Other Port Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 4.93E-13
T7 Other Port Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 1.82E-11
T7 POAK Class 8Dsl IDLEX 1.55E-05
T7 POAK Class 8Dsl RUNEX 0.000306
T7 POLA Class 8Dsl IDLEX 4.96E-13
T7 POLA Class 8Dsl RUNEX 1.28E-11
T7 Public Class 8Dsl IDLEX 4.17E-05
T7 Public Class 8Dsl RUNEX 0.001014
T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 2.05E-05 T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000558 T7 Single Dump Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 4.41E-05
T7 Single Dump Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.000967
T7 Single Other Class 8 Dsl IDLEX 0.000123
T7 Single Other Class 8 Dsl RUNEX 0.002507
T7 SWCV Class 8Dsl IDLEX 1.64E-05
2 Appendix #
Grocery Outlet Fuel Demand
EMFAC 2020.1
T7 SWCV Class 8Dsl RUNEX 0.001129
T7 Tractor Class 8Dsl IDLEX 0.000187
T7 Tractor Class 8Dsl RUNEX 0.002769
T7 Utility Class 8Dsl IDLEX 1.76E-06
T7 Utility Class 8Dsl RUNEX 8.70E-05
UBUS Dsl RUNEX 0.00075
LDA Gas RUNEX 0.103389
LDA Gas STREX 0.003244
LDT1 Gas RUNEX 0.011917
LDT1 Gas STREX 0.000446
LDT2 Gas RUNEX 0.064306
LDT2 Gas STREX 0.002051
LHD1 Gas IDLEX 6.04E-05
LHD1 Gas RUNEX 0.015961
LHD1 Gas STREX 0.00019
LHD2 Gas IDLEX 9.12E-06
LHD2 Gas RUNEX 0.002313
LHD2 Gas STREX 2.52E-05
MCY Gas RUNEX 0.000526
MCY Gas STREX 5.33E-05
MDV Gas RUNEX 0.06257
MDV Gas STREX 0.0021
MH Gas RUNEX 0.000938
MH Gas STREX 1.79E-07
OBUS Gas IDLEX 3.78E-06
OBUS Gas RUNEX 0.001172
OBUS Gas STREX 6.68E-06
SBUS Gas IDLEX 3.72E-05
SBUS Gas RUNEX 0.001013
SBUS Gas STREX 4.19E-06
T6TS Gas IDLEX 1.71E-05
T6TS Gas RUNEX 0.003836
T6TS Gas STREX 3.18E-05
T7IS Gas RUNEX 6.02E-06
T7IS Gas STREX 4.15E-08
UBUS Gas RUNEX 0.000821
UBUS Gas STREX 2.01E-06
LDA Phe RUNEX 0.001298
LDA Phe STREX 5.70E-05
LDT1 Phe RUNEX 3.32E-06
LDT1 Phe STREX 1.70E-07
LDT2 Phe RUNEX 0.000141
LDT2 Phe STREX 7.79E-06
MDV Phe RUNEX 0.000111
MDV Phe STREX 7.53E-06
3 APPENDIX C
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RETAIL STORE BUILDING
1023 BROADWAY (APN: 026-391-025)
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
SALEM PROJECT NUMBER 1-221-0084
MARCH 3, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
TERRY JOHNSON
BEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP
2580 SIERRA BLVD., SUITE E
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
PREPARED BY:
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
4729 W. JACQUELYN AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93722
P: (559) 271-9700
F: (559) 275-0827
www.salem.net
GEOTECHNICAL ● ENVIRONMENTAL ● GEOLOGY ● MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION ● FORENSIC ● LABORATORY 4729 W. Jacquelyn Avenue
Fresno, CA 93722
Phone (559) 271-9700
Fax (559) 275-0827
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
March 3, 2021 Project No. 1-221-0084
Terry Johnson
Best Development Group
2580 Sierra Blvd., Suite E
Sacramento, CA 95825
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RETAIL STORE BUILDING
1023 BROADWAY (APN: 026-391-025)
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Davis:
At your request and authorization, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) has prepared this Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report for the proposed retail store building to be located at the subject site in King City, California.
The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of designing and constructing the project as presently proposed. In our opinion, the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided our recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have questions regarding this report or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at (559) 271-9700.
Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
Ahmad Dalqamouni, Ph.D., MCE Dean B. Ledgerwood II, CEG Geotechnical Project Engineer Geotechnical Manager
Central / Northern California CEG 2613
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE..................................................................................................1
2. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.........................................................................1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................1
4. FIELD EXPLORATION..................................................................................................2
5. LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................................2
6. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS................................................................3
6.1 Surface and Subsurface Conditions..................................................................................... 3
6.2 Groundwater...................................................................................................................... 3
6.3. Soil Corrosion Screening.................................................................................................... 3
7. GEOLOGIC SETTING....................................................................................................4
8. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..................................................................................................4
8.1 Faulting and Seismicity...................................................................................................... 4
8.2 Surface Fault Rupture ........................................................................................................ 5
8.3 Ground Shaking................................................................................................................. 5
8.4 Liquefaction ...................................................................................................................... 5
8.5 Lateral Spreading............................................................................................................... 6
8.6 Landslides ......................................................................................................................... 6
8.7 Tsunamis and Seiches........................................................................................................ 6
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................6
9.1 General Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 6
9.2 Surface Drainage ............................................................................................................... 7
9.3 Site Grading ...................................................................................................................... 7
9.4 Soil and Excavation Characteristics.................................................................................. 10
9.5 Materials for Fill.............................................................................................................. 10
9.6 Seismic Design Criteria.................................................................................................... 11
9.7 Shallow Foundations........................................................................................................ 13
9.8 Interior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................................... 13
9.9 Exterior Concrete Slabs on Grade..................................................................................... 15
9.10 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance .............................................................. 15
9.11 Retaining Walls............................................................................................................... 16
9.12 Temporary Excavations.................................................................................................... 17
9.13 Underground Utilities....................................................................................................... 18
9.14 Pavement Design ............................................................................................................. 18
10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING........................ 20
10.1 Plan and Specification Review ......................................................................................... 20
10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services................................................................. 20
11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS......................................................... 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
APPENDIX A – FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figure A1 through A7, Logs of Exploratory Soil Borings B-1 through B-7 APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING
Consolidation Test Results
Direct Shear Test Result
Gradation Curves
Resistance Value (R-Value)
Resistivity Test Result
Expansion Index
Atterberg Limits
Corrosivity Test Results
4729 W. Jacquelyn Avenue
Fresno, CA 93722
Phone (559) 271-9700
Fax (559) 275-0827
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 1 -
March 3, 2021
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RETAIL STORE BUILDING
1023 BROADWAY (APN: 026-391-025)
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for the site of the proposed retail building planned at the subject site located at 1023 Broadway (APN: 026-391-025) in King City, California, as depicted on Figure 1, Vicinity Map.
SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) has completed this geotechnical engineering investigation with the purpose to observe and sample the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, and provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of constructing the project as presently proposed.
The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation and our local experience with similar soil and geologic conditions.
If project details vary significantly from those described herein, SALEM should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.
2. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located 1023 Broadway (APN: 026-391-025) in King City, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). At the time of our field exploration, the area of the proposed retail store building was a vacant property.
The subject parcel is observed to be bounded by a commercial development and vacant parcel southwest and southeast, with Broadway Street to the northwest and commercial development to the northeast.
The project site area is relatively flat with elevations of about 308 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), based on Google Earth Imagery.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
An understanding of the project was provided by a site plan developed by SGA Architects (dated:
1/04/2021). It is further understood the project consists of construction of a retail store Building (Parcel #02) with plan view areas anticipated to be approximately 18,000 square feet. The proposed development is anticipated to be developed on an existing vacant lot of approximately 1.8 acres.
The building construction is anticipated to include steel or wood framing supported on shallow spread foundations with conventional concrete slabs on grade. Structural loads were not provided to us; however, based upon our past experience, we have assumed that the building will likely require shallow foundations with column and continuous wall footings that have loads of up to approximately 20 to 60 kips and about 1 to 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Floor slab soil bearing pressure is expected not to exceed 150 psf.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 2 -
March 3, 2021
A site grading plan was not available at the time of preparation of this report. Based on the relatively flat grade at the project site during our field exploration, it is anticipated that cuts and fills during earthwork will be on the order of 1 to 2 feet to providing a level area for the project area. In the event that changes occur in the nature or design of the project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of our report are modified.
The site location and approximate locations of proposed improvements are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
4. FIELD EXPLORATION
Our field exploration consisted of site surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. On February 2, 2021, seven (7) exploratory test borings were drilled to depths ranging from 5 to 25 feet below site grade.
The test borings were drilled within or near the proposed building and drive areas at the approximate locations shown on Figure No. 2, Site Plan. The test borings were advanced with approximate 4-inch diameter hollow stem auger rotated by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig.
The materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field, and logs were recorded by a field engineer at that time. Visual classification of the materials encountered in the test borings was generally made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).
A Unified Soil Classification Chart and key to sampling is presented in Appendix A, including test boring logs. Subsurface soil samples were obtained by driving a Modified California sampler (MCS) or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol. The location of the test borings were determined by measuring from site features determined from information provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants. The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix A should be consulted.
Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound automated trip hammer through a 30-inch free fall to drive the sampler to a maximum penetration of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches, or less if very dense or hard, is recorded as Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) on the logs of borings.
Soil samples were obtained from the test borings at the depths shown on the test boring logs. The MCS samples were recovered and capped at both ends to preserve the samples at their natural moisture content; SPT samples were recovered and placed in a sealed bag to preserve their natural moisture content. At the completion of drilling and sampling, the test borings were backfilled with drill cuttings.
5. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory-testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, density, shear strength, consolidation, resistance value, expansion index, Atterberg Limits, and gradation of the materials encountered.
In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the corrosivity of the soils to buried concrete and metal. Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are summarized in Appendix B. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix A.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 3 -
March 3, 2021
6. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
6.1 Surface and Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the soils encountered generally consisted of sandy silty clay and sandy lean clay interbedded with clayey silty sand, silty sand, and sandy silts to the maximum depth explored of 26.5 feet below site grade One (1) consolidation tests resulted in about 8 percent consolidation under a load of 8 kips per square foot.
When wetted under a load of 2.0 kips per square foot, the sample exhibited approximately 0.1 percent collapse.
Two (2) direct shear tests resulted in internal angles of friction of 39 and 34 degrees with cohesion values of 155 and 363 pounds per square foot, respectively. Atterberg Limits test performed on a near surface soil sample resulted in a plasticity index of 16 and liquid limit value of 36. An expansion index test performed on a sample collected from the upper 3 feet BSG resulted in an expansion index of 42.
One (1) R-value tests performed on near surface sample resulted in R-values of 18.
The soils were classified in the field during the drilling and sampling operations. The stratification lines were approximated by the field engineer on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix A should be consulted.
6.2 Groundwater
The test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after the drilling operations. Free groundwater was not encountered during this investigation to the maximum depth explored of 26½ feet below site grade. Based on review of well data provided on the Department of Water Resources Water Data Library website (http://www.wdl.water.ca.gov/), State Well Number 362614N1211432W001 located less than 3.7 mile north of the site reports a historical high groundwater depth of 51.9 feet below site grade in March 2019.
It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, localized pumping, and climatic conditions as well as other factors.
Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.
6.3. Soil Corrosion Screening
Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete and the soil. The 2019 Edition of ACI 318 (ACI 318) has established criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. A soil sample was obtained from the project site and was tested for the evaluation of the potential for concrete deterioration or steel corrosion due to attack by soil-borne soluble salts and soluble chloride. The water-soluble sulfate concentration in the saturation extract from the soil sample was detected to be 103mg/kg.
ACI 318 Tables 19.3.1.1 and 19.3.2.1 outline exposure categories, classes, and concrete requirements by exposure class. ACI 318 requirements for site concrete based upon soluble sulfate are summarized in Table
6.3 below.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 4 -
March 3, 2021
TABLE 6.3
WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE EXPOSURE REQUIREMENTS
The water-soluble chloride concentration detected in saturation extract from the soil samples was 79 mg/kg.
In addition, testing performed on a near surface soil resulted in a minimum resistivity value of 1,177 ohmcentimeters. Based on the results, these soils would be considered to have a “highly corrosive” potential to buried metal objects (per National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Corrosion Severity Ratings).
It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, applicable manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection of buried metal pipe be closely followed. Additional corrosion testing for minimum resistivity may need to be performed if required by the pipe manufacturer.
7. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project site is in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, which is a topographic and structural basin that is bounded on the east by the Sierra Nevada and on the west by the Coast Ranges. The Sierra Nevada, a fault block dipping gently southwestward, is made up of igneous and metamorphic rocks of pre-Tertiary age that comprise the basement complex beneath the Valley. The Coast Ranges contain folded and faulted sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age, which are similar to those rocks that underlie the Valley at depth and non-conformably overlie the basement complex; gently dipping to nearly horizontal sedimentary rocks of Tertiary and Quaternary age overlie the older rocks. The Great Valley Province is an alluvial plain, drained by the Sacramento River in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the south, each join and flow out the San Francisco Bay. The Great Valley is an asymmetric trough, extending about 50 miles wide and 400 miles long. The southern portion of the Great Valley includes San Joaquin Valley filled with Pleistocene and Holocene alluvium derived from the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges. Sediments in the Great Valley are reportedly up to 40,000 feet thick.
Based on review of the Geologic Map of California: Thompson Canyon Quadrangle1 , the area of the subject
site is in an area mapped as Holocene Alluvial gravel, sand and silt/clay mixtures of valley areas (Qa).
8. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
8.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Based on the proximity of several dominant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the historic seismic record, the area of the subject site is considered subject to relatively low seismicity. The project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone and will not require a special site investigation by
1 Dibble, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2006, Geologic Map of California: Thompson Canyon Quadrangle: Monterey County. California. Dibblee Geological Foundation., DF-250, scale 1:24,000 Dissolved
Sulfate (SO4) in
Soil % by
Weight
Exposure
Severity
Exposure
Class
Maximum
w/cm
Ratio
Minimum
Concrete
Compressive
Strength
Cementitious
Materials Type
(ASTM C150)
0.010 Not
Applicable SO N/A 2,500 psi No Restriction
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 5 -
March 3, 2021
an Engineering Geologist. Soils on site are classified as Site Class E in accordance with Chapter 16 of the California Building Code. The proposed structures are determined to be in Seismic Design Category D.
To determine the distance of known active faults within 100 miles of the site, we used the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web-based application 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters.
Site latitude is 38.2055° North; site longitude is - 121.1363° West. The ten closest active faults are summarized below in Table 8.1.
TABLE 8.1
REGIONAL FAULT SUMMARY
Fault Name Distance to
Site (miles)
Maximum Earthquake
Magnitude, Mw
Rinconada 4.61 7.5
San Andreas fault - creeping segment 15.09 N/A
Monterey Bay-Tularcitos 24.49 7.3
Hosgri 28.65 7.3
S. San Andreas ; PK+CH+CC
+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB
35.05 7.9
Quien Sabe 38.42 6.6
Ortigalita 38.70 7.1
Great Valley 10 39.94 6.5
Great Valley 11 40.29 6.6
San Gregorio Connected 41.11 7.5
The faults tabulated above and numerous other faults in the region are sources of potential ground motion. However, earthquakes that might occur on other faults throughout California are also potential generators of significant ground motion and could subject the site to intense ground shaking.
8.2 Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low.
8.3 Ground Shaking
Based on the 2019 CBC, a Site Class E was selected for the site based on soil conditions with standard penetration resistance, N-values, averaging less than 15 blows per foot. Table 9.6.1 includes design seismic coefficients and spectral response parameters, based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) for the project foundation design.
Based on Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps, the estimated design peak ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM) was determined to be
0.645 g (based on both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion).
8.4 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particles suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which Project No. 1-221-0084 - 6 -
March 3, 2021
the strength is purely frictional. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are: moderate to strong ground shaking (seismic source), relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater). Due to the increasing overburden pressure with depth, liquefaction of granular soils is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of a soil profile.
In general, the soils encountered generally appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site.
The soils encountered generally consisted of sandy silty clay interbedded with clayey silty sand, silty sand, and sandy silts to the maximum depth explored of 26.5 feet below site grade. Free groundwater was not encountered to the depth of exploration during this investigation. Based on available Water Well Data, historic groundwater depths are reported to be around 51.9 feet below site grade.
Based on the lack of groundwater within the upper 50 feet BSG, the potential for liquefaction/seismic settlement to impact the site is considered low.
8.5 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often associated with liquefaction. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. Due to the relatively flat site topography and lack of groundwater near the surface, we judge the likelihood of lateral spreading to be nil to very low.
8.6 Landslides
There are no known landslides at the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. We do not consider the potential for a landslide to be a hazard to this project.
8.7 Tsunamis and Seiches
The site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site.
Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major waterretaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Flooding from a seismicallyinduced seiche is considered unlikely.
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 General Conclusions
9.1.1 Based upon the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction of improvements at the site as planned, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. Conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on our review of available literature, analysis of data obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing program, and our understanding of the proposed development at this time.
9.1.2 The soils encountered generally consisted of sandy silty clay interbedded with clayey silty sand, silty sand, and sandy silts to the maximum depth explored of 26.5 feet below site grade. Free groundwater was not encountered to the depth of exploration during this investigation.
9.1.3 The near surface soils exhibited moderate compressibility characteristics, slight collapse potential, and low expansion potential. When compacted as engineered fill, the near surface soils have poor Project No. 1-221-0084 - 7 -
March 3, 2021
9.1.4 Based on the subsurface conditions at the site and the anticipated structural loading, we anticipate that the proposed building may be supported using conventional shallow foundations provided that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated in the design and construction of the project.
9.1.5 Provided the site is graded in accordance with the recommendations of this report and foundations constructed as described herein, we estimate that total settlement due to static loads utilizing conventional shallow foundations for the proposed building will be within 1-inch and corresponding differential settlement will be less than ½-inch in 40 feet.
9.1.6 All references to relative compaction and optimum moisture content in this report are based on ASTM D 1557 (latest edition).
9.1.7 We should be retained to review the project plans as they develop further, provide engineering consultation as-needed, and perform geotechnical observation and testing services during construction.
9.2 Surface Drainage
9.2.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change to important engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times.
9.2.2 The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation should be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation should be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over-irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed.
9.2.3 Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout extensions out-falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a minimum of 5 feet away from the structures or be connected to the storm drain system for the development.
9.3 Site Grading
9.3.1 A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and/or observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Geotechnical Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section as well as other portions of this report.
9.3.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 8 -
March 3, 2021
9.3.3 Site demolition activities shall include removal of all surface obstructions not intended to be incorporated into final site design. In addition, undocumented fill, underground buried structures, and/or utility lines, underground septic tanks and leach lines (if any), existing foundation elements, etc., encountered during demolition and construction should be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. After demolition activities, it is recommended that disturbed soils be removed and/or replaced with compacted engineered fill soils.
9.3.4 Excavations or depressions resulting from site clearing/demolition operations, or other existing excavations or depressions, should be restored with Engineered Fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report.
9.3.5 Surface vegetation consisting of grasses and other similar vegetation should be removed by stripping to a sufficient depth to remove organic-rich topsoil. The upper 2 to 4 inches of the soils containing, vegetation, roots and other objectionable organic matter encountered at the time of grading should be stripped and removed from the surface. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. The stripped vegetation will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill or within 5 feet of building pads. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or nonstructural areas or exported from the site.
9.3.6 Structural building pad areas and over-build zone should be considered as areas extending a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the outside dimensions of buildings, including footings and non-cantilevered overhangs carrying structural loads.
9.3.7 To provide uniform support for the proposed building, it is recommended that over-excavation extend to at least 36 inches below preconstruction site grade, 24 inches below the bottom of proposed foundations, or to the depth required to remove any undocumented fills (if encountered), whichever is greater. The resulting bottom of excavation shall be scarified to a minimum depth of at least 12 inches, worked until uniform and free from large clods or soft soils, then moistureconditioned to slightly above optimum moisture, and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density. The horizontal limits of the over-excavation should extend throughout the building overbuild zone, laterally to a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outer edges of the proposed building pad.
9.3.8 Interior slabs on grade (including exterior slabs located directly adjacent to the building pad) should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted to 95 percent relative compaction over 12 inches of imported non expansive fill over the depth of engineered fill recommended below foundations.
9.3.9 Areas of exterior concrete slabs on grade located outside the building pad over-build zone, should be prepared by over-excavation to a minimum of 12 inches below existing grade or 12 inches below the bottom of concrete slabs, whichever is greater. The zone of over-excavation should extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond these improvements. These soils should be moisture conditioned to near optimum and compacted as engineered fill.
Exterior concrete slabs on grade should be supported on a minimum of 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted to 95 percent relative compaction over 8 inches of imported non expansive engineered fill over subgrade soils prepared as recommended above.
9.3.10 Areas of asphaltic concrete pavements and Portland cement concrete pavements located outside the building pad over-build zone, should be prepared by over-excavation to a minimum of 12 inches below existing grade or 12 inches below the bottom of aggregate base section, whichever is greater.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 9 -
March 3, 2021
The zone of over-excavation should extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond these improvements. These soils should be moisture conditioned to near optimum and compacted as engineered fill. The upper 12 inches below pavements should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction.
9.3.11 Areas to receive engineered fill outside the building pad over-build zone, should be prepared by scarification of the upper 12 inches below existing grade or 12 inches below the recommended base section, whichever is greater. These soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum and compacted as engineered fill.
9.3.12 An integral part of satisfactory fill placement is the stability of the placed lift of soil. If placed materials exhibit excessive instability as determined by a SALEM field representative, the lift will be considered unacceptable and shall be remedied prior to placement of additional fill material.
Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.
9.3.13 The most effective site preparation alternatives will depend on site conditions prior to grading. We should evaluate site conditions and provide supplemental recommendations immediately prior to grading, if necessary.
9.3.14 We do not anticipate groundwater or seepage to adversely affect construction if conducted during the drier months of the year (typically summer and fall). However, groundwater and soil moisture conditions could be significantly different during the wet season (typically winter and spring) as surface soil becomes wet; perched groundwater conditions may develop. Grading during this time period will likely encounter wet materials resulting in possible excavation and fill placement difficulties. Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during construction should be performed. If the construction schedule requires grading operations during the wet season, we can provide additional recommendations as conditions warrant.
9.3.15 Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material or placement of crushed rocks or aggregate base material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product.
The most common remedial measure of stabilizing the bottom of the excavation due to wet soil condition is to reduce the moisture of the soil to near the optimum moisture content by having the subgrade soils scarified and aerated or mixed with drier soils prior to compacting. However, the drying process may require an extended period of time and delay the construction operation.
To expedite the stabilizing process, crushed rock may be utilized for stabilization provided this method is approved by the owner for the cost purpose.
If the use of crushed rock is considered, it is recommended that the upper soft and wet soils be replaced by 6 to 24 inches of ¾-inch to 1-inch crushed rocks. The thickness of the rock layer depends on the severity of the soil instability. The recommended 6 to 24 inches of crushed rock material will provide a stable platform. It is further recommended that lighter compaction equipment be utilized for compacting the crushed rock. All open graded crushed rock/gravel should be fully encapsulated with a geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 140N) to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock. Although it is not required, the use of geogrid (e.g. Tensar BX 1100, BX 1200 or TX 160) below the crushed rock will enhance stability and reduce the required thickness of crushed rock necessary for stabilization.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 10 -
March 3, 2021
In addition, chemical drying of the bottom of the excavation and engineered fill soils could be considered. For bidding purposes, the Contractor may assume 5 percent high calcium quicklime for chemical stabilization/drying of on-site soils. The actual application rate will need to be adjusted based on conditions encountered during grading.
Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to provide appropriate recommendations.
9.4 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
9.4.1 The on-site soils are not anticipated to require specialty grading equipment to achieve the planned excavation depths.
9.4.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of adjacent existing improvements. Temporary excavations are further discussed in a later Section of this report.
9.4.3 The near surface soils identified as part of our investigation are, generally, damp to moist due to the absorption characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations may encounter very moist unstable soils which may require removal to a stable bottom. Exposed native soils exposed as part of site grading operations shall not be allowed to dry out and should be kept continuously moist prior to placement of subsequent fill.
9.5 Materials for Fill
9.5.1 On-site soils are suitable for use as general Engineered Fill below foundations, and below the non expansive section section recommended below concrete slabs on grade, provided they do not contain deleterious matter, organic material, or material larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension.
9.5.2 Imported Non-Expansive Engineered Fill soil, should be well-graded, low-to-non-expansive slightly cohesive silty sand or sandy silt. This material should be approved by the Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the soil characteristics summarized below in Table 9.5.2.
TABLE 9.5.2
IMPORT FILL REQUIREMENTS
Percent Passing 3-inch Sieve 100
Percent Passing No.4 Sieve 75-100
Percent Passing No 200 Sieve 15-40
Maximum Plasticity Index 15
Maximum Organic Content 3% by Weight
Maximum Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) 20
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 11 -
March 3, 2021
Prior to importing the Contractor should demonstrate to the Owner that the proposed import meets the requirements for import fill specified in this report. In addition, the material should be verified by the Contractor that the soils do not contain any environmental contaminates as regulated by local, state, or federal agencies, as applicable
9.5.3 All Engineered Fill (including scarified ground surfaces and backfill) should be placed in lifts no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction (typically 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness).
9.5.4 On-Site soils used as engineered fill soils should moisture conditioned to at least 1 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
9.5.5 Import Engineered Fill, if selected, should be placed, moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 92 percent relative compaction.
9.5.6 The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since they have complete control of the project site.
9.5.7 Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials should also be considered.
9.5.8 Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by SALEM prior to its transportation to the site.
9.5.9 Aggregate base material should meet the requirements of a Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base. The aggregate base material should conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class 2 material, ¾-inch or 1½-inches maximum size. The aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based ASTM D1557. The aggregate base material should be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course should be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers
9.5.10 Open graded gravel and rock material (i.e. ¾ inch or ½ inch crushed gravel) should not be used as backfill including utility trenches. If required by local agency or for use in subgrade stabilization, to prevent migration of fines, open graded materials should be fully encapsulated in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Open graded rock should be placed in loose lifts no greater than about 6 to 8 inches, and vibrated in-place to a firm non-yielding condition.
9.6 Seismic Design Criteria
9.6.1 For seismic design of the structures, and in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2019 CBC, our recommended parameters are shown below. These parameters were determined using Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps by location website (https://seismicmaps.org/), in accordance with the 2019 CBC. The Site Class was determined based on the soils encountered during our field exploration.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 12 -
March 3, 2021
TABLE 9.6.1
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Seismic Item Symbol Value 2016 ASCE 7 or
2019 CBC Reference
Site Coordinates (Datum = NAD 83) 36.2055 Lat
-121.1363 Lon
Site Class -- E ASCE 7 Table 20.3-1
Soil Profile Name -- “Soft Soil” ASCE 7 Table 20.3-1
Risk Category -- II CBC Table 1604.5
Site Coefficient for PGA FPGA 1.128 ASCE 7 Table 11.8-1 Peak Ground Acceleration
(adjusted for Site Class effects)
PGAM 0.645 g ASCE 7 Equation 11.8-1
Seismic Design Category SDC D CBC Table 1613.2.5
Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SS 1.424 g CBC Figure 1613.2.1(1-8) Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) S1 0.504 g CBC Figure 1613.2.1(1-8)
Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fa 1.200 * CBC Table 1613.2.3(1) Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fv 2.192 * CBC Table 1613.2.3(2) MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SMS = Fa SS
SMS 1.709 g* CBC Equation 16-36
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) SM1 = Fv S1
SM1 1.105 g * CBC Equation 16-37
Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SDS=⅔SMS (short period - 0.2 sec) SDS 1.139 g* CBC Equation 16-38 Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SD1=⅔SM1 (1.0 sec. period) SD1 0.737 g* CBC Equation 16-39 Short Period Transition Period (SD1/SDS),
Seconds TS 0.647 ASCE 7-16, Section
11.4.6 Long Period Transition period (seconds) TL 12 ASCE 7-16, Figures 22-14 through 22-17
Note: * Determined per ASCE Table 11.4.-2 for use in calculating TS only.
Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis was not included in the scope of this investigation. Per ASCE 11.4.8, Structures on Site Class E, with Ss greater than 1.0 and/or S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 may require Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis. However, a site specific ground motion analysis may not be required based on Exceptions listed in ASCE 11.4.8. The Structural Engineer should verify whether Exception No. 2 of ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8 is valid for the proposed building. In the event a site specific ground motion analysis is required, SALEM should be contacted for these services.
9.6.2 Conformance to the criteria in the above table for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large Project No. 1-221-0084 - 13 -
March 3, 2021
earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
9.7 Shallow Foundations
9.7.1 The site is suitable for use of conventional shallow foundations consisting of continuous footings and isolated pad footings supported on engineered fill prepared in accordance with Section 9.3 of this report. Shallow foundations supported on engineered fill or reinforced fill extending to depths recommended in this report may be designed based on total and differential static settlement of 1 inch and ½ inch in 40 feet, respectively.
9.7.2 The bearing wall footings considered for the structure should be continuous with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend to minimum depths of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Isolated column footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and extend a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.
9.7.3 Footing concrete should be placed into neat excavation. The footing bottoms should be maintained free of loose and disturbed soil.
9.7.4 Foundations supported on engineered fill as recommended in this report may be designed based on an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (dead plus live load). This value may be increased by one-third (1/3) for wind and seismic loading. The weight of the concrete footing and soil backfill above the foundation may be neglected in design.
9.7.5 Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable coefficient of friction factor of 0.36 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting engineered fill.
9.7.6 Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical native footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. An increase of one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combination in Section 1605.3.2 of the 2019 CBC that includes wind or earthquake loads.
9.7.7 Underground utilities running parallel to footings should not be constructed in the zone of influence of footings. The zone of influence may be taken to be the area beneath the footing and within a 1:1 plane extending out and down from the bottom edge of the footing.
9.7.8 The foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition without significant shrinkage cracks as would be expected in any concrete placement. Prior to placing rebar reinforcement, foundation excavations should be evaluated by a representative of SALEM for appropriate support characteristics and moisture content. Moisture conditioning may be required for the materials exposed at footing bottom, particularly if foundation excavations are left open for an extended period.
9.8 Interior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
9.8.1 Slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading. We recommend that non-structural slabs-on-grade be at least 4 inches thick and underlain by six (6) inches of class 2 aggregate base compacted to 95 percent relative Project No. 1-221-0084 - 14 -
March 3, 2021
compaction over 12 inches of imported non expansive engineered fill over the depth of engineered fill recommended below foundations.
9.8.2 We recommend reinforcing slabs, at a minimum, with No. 4 reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center, each way. As an alternative, the use of welded wire or fiber mesh reinforcement may be considered by the Structural Engineer.
9.8.3 The spacing of crack control joints should be designed by the project structural engineer. In order to regulate cracking of the slabs, we recommend that full depth construction joints or control joints be provided at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction for 5-inch thick slabs and 12 feet for 6-inch thick slabs.
9.8.4 Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement. The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system.
9.8.5 It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the structures is recommended.
9.8.6 Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structure. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and/or ASTM guidelines, whichever is more stringent. In addition, ventilation of the structure is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture.
9.8.7 In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness where moisture-sensitive coverings, coatings, underlayments, adhesives, moisture sensitive goods, humidity controlled environments, or climate cooled environments are anticipated, construction should have a suitable waterproof vapor retarder (a minimum of 15 mils thick, is recommended, polyethylene vapor retarder sheeting, Raven Industries “VaporBlock 15, Stego Industries 15 mil “StegoWrap” or W.R. Meadows Sealtight 15 mil “Perminator”) incorporated into the floor slab design. The water vapor retarder should be a decay resistant material complying with ASTM E96 or ASTM E1249 not exceeding 0.01 perms, ASTM E154 and ASTM E1745 Class A. The vapor retarder should, maintain the recommended permeance after conditioning tests per ASTM E1745. The vapor barrier should be placed between the concrete slab and the compacted granular aggregate subbase material. The water vapor retarder (vapor barrier) should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1643-18.
9.8.8 The concrete may be placed directly on vapor retarder. The vapor retarder should be inspected prior to concrete placement. Cut or punctured retarder should be repaired using vapor retarder material lapped 6 inches beyond damaged areas and taped. Extend vapor retarder over footings and seal to foundation wall or slab at an elevation consistent with the top of the slab or terminate at impediments such as water stops or dowels. Seal around penetrations such as utilities or columns in order to create a monolithic membrane between the surface of the slab and moisture sources below the slab as well as at the slab perimeter.
9.8.9 Avoid use of stakes driven through the vapor retarder.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 15 -
March 3, 2021
9.8.10 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to soil movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to soil movement.
This is common for project areas that contain expansive or loose soils since designing to eliminate potential soil movement is cost prohibitive. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
9.8.11 Proper finishing and curing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.
9.9 Exterior Concrete Slabs on Grade
9.9.1 The following recommendations are intended for lightly loaded exterior slabs on grade not subject to vehicular traffic. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading. We recommend that non-structural slabs-on-grade be at least 4 inches thick and underlain by four (4) inches of class 2 aggregate base over 8 inches of imported non expansive engineered fill over the depth of engineered fill recommended in section
9.3 of this report.
9.9.2 The spacing of crack control joints should be designed by the project structural engineer. In order to regulate cracking of the slabs, we recommend that full depth construction joints or control joints be provided at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction for 5-inch thick slabs and 12 feet for 6-inch thick slabs.
9.9.3 Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement.
9.9.4 Proper finishing and curing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.
9.10 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance
9.10.1 Active, at-rest and passive unit lateral earth pressures against footings and walls are summarized in the table below:
Lateral Pressure Conditions Soil Equivalent
Fluid Pressure
Active Pressure, Drained, pcf 35
At-Rest Pressure, Drained, pcf 55
Allowable Passive Pressure, pcf 300
Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.36
Minimum Wet Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) [γmin] 100
Maximum Wet Unit Weight (lbs/ft3) [γmax] 125
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 16 -
March 3, 2021
9.10.2 Active pressure applies to walls, which are free to rotate. At-rest pressure applies to walls, which are restrained against rotation. The preceding lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage behind retaining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. The top one-foot of adjacent subgrade should be deleted from the passive pressure computation.
9.10.3 The allowable parameters include a safety factor of 1.5 and can be used in design for direct comparison of resisting loads against lateral driving loads.
9.10.4 If combined passive and frictional resistance is used in design, a 50 percent reduction in frictional resistance is recommended.
9.10.5 For lateral stability against seismic loading conditions, we recommend a minimum safety factor of
1.1. 9.10.6 For dynamic seismic lateral loading the following equation should be used:
Dynamic Seismic Lateral Loading Equation
Dynamic Seismic Lateral Load = ⅜γKhH2
Where: γ = Maximum In-Place Soil Density (Section 9.10.1 above) Kh = Horizontal Acceleration = ⅔PGAM (Section 9.6.1 above) H = Wall Height
9.11 Retaining Walls
9.11.1 Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pipe encased in freedraining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a minimum width of 12 inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. The upper 12 inches of backfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic-concrete or other suitable backfill to minimize surface drainage into the wall drain system. The gravel should conform to Class 2 permeable materials graded in accordance with the current CalTrans Standard Specifications. On-site clayey soils are not suitable behind retaining walls within a zone defined by a 1H to 1V line extending up from the base of planned retaining walls.
9.11.2 Prefabricated drainage systems, such as Miradrain®, Enkadrain®, or an equivalent substitute, are acceptable alternatives in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firm should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation.
9.11.3 Drainage pipes should be placed with perforations down and should discharge in a non-erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements.
9.11.4 The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottom of the adjacent floor slab or pavements. The pipe should be placed in the center line of the drainage blanket and should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches. Slots should be no wider than 1/8-inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than ¼-inch in diameter.
9.11.5 If retaining walls are less than 5 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lieu of weep holes on 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 2-inch minimum diameter holes (concrete walls) or unmortared head joints (masonry walls) and placed no higher than 18 Project No. 1-221-0084 - 17 -
March 3, 2021
inches above the lowest adjacent grade. Two 8-inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") should be affixed to the rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard soil piping.
9.11.6 During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures. Within this zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact the backfill soils.
9.12 Temporary Excavations
9.12.1 We anticipate that the majority of the dense site soils will be classified as Cal-OSHA “Type C” soil when encountered in excavations during site development and construction. Excavation sloping, benching, the use of trench shields, and the placement of trench spoils should conform to the latest applicable Cal-OSHA standards. The contractor should have a Cal-OSHA-approved “competent person” onsite during excavation to evaluate trench conditions and make appropriate recommendations where necessary.
9.12.2 It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide sufficient and safe excavation support as well as protecting nearby utilities, structures, and other improvements which may be damaged by earth movements. All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load.
9.12.3 Temporary excavations and slope faces should be protected from rainfall and erosion. Surface runoff should be directed away from excavations and slopes.
9.12.4 Open, unbraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the slopes presented in the following table:
RECOMMENDED EXCAVATION SLOPES
Depth of Excavation (ft) Slope (Horizontal : Vertical)
0-5 1:1
5-10 1½:1
10-15 2:1
9.12.5 If, due to space limitation, excavations near existing structures are performed in a vertical position, braced shorings or shields may be used for supporting vertical excavations. Therefore, in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed shoring system would be required to accomplish planned excavations and installation. A Specialty Shoring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a shoring system during construction.
9.12.6 Braced shorings should be designed for a maximum pressure distribution of 15H, (where H is the depth of the excavation in feet). The foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or surcharge loading. Fifty percent of any surcharge load, such as construction equipment weight, Project No. 1-221-0084 - 18 -
March 3, 2021
should be added to the lateral load given herein. Equipment traffic should concurrently be limited to an area at least 3 feet from the shoring face or edge of the slope.
9.12.7 The excavation and shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from the borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. Slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or Assessor’s regulations.
9.13 Underground Utilities
9.13.1 Underground utility trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted material. The material excavated from the trenches should be adequate for use as backfill provided it does not contain deleterious matter, vegetation or rock larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension. Trench backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction at or above optimum moisture content. The upper 12 inches of trench backfill within asphalt or concrete paved areas should be moisture conditioned to at or above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
9.13.2 Bedding and pipe zone backfill typically extends from the bottom of the trench excavations to approximately 12 inches above the crown of the pipe. Pipe bedding, haunches and initial fill extending to 1 foot above the pipe should consist of a clean well graded sand with 100 percent passing the #4 sieve, a maximum of 15 percent passing the #200 sieve, and a minimum sand equivalent of 20.
9.13.3 It is suggested that underground utilities crossing beneath new or existing structures be plugged at entry and exit locations to the building or structure to prevent water migration. Trench plugs can consist of on-site clay soils, if available, or sand cement slurry. The trench plugs should extend 2 feet beyond each side of individual perimeter foundations.
9.13.4 The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction
9.14 Pavement Design
9.14.1 R-Value testing was performed on a sample obtained from the site at the location shown on the attached site plan (Boring B-5). The sample was tested in accordance with the State of California Materials Manual Test Designation 301. R-Value testing on a near surface sample resulted in an R-value of 18. The pavement design recommendations provided herein are based on an R-value of
18. 9.14.2 The asphaltic concrete (flexible pavement) is based on a 20-year pavement life utilizing traffic indexes of ranging from 4.0 to 7.0. The Civil Engineer should select the appropriate pavement section based on the anticipated traffic loading. The following table shows the recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 19 -
March 3, 2021
TABLE 9.14.2
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESSES
Traffic Index Asphaltic
Concrete, (inches)
Class 2 Aggregate
Base, (inches)*
Compacted Subgrade,
(inches)*
4.0 2.5 5.0 12.0
5.0 2.5 8.5 12.0
6.0 3.0 11.0 12.0
7.0 4.0 12.0 12.0
*95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method
9.14.3 The following recommendations are for Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections.
TABLE 9.14.3
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESSES
Traffic Index Portland Cement
Concrete, (inches)*
Class 2 Aggregate
Base, (inches)**
Compacted Subgrade.
(inches)**
4.0 5.0 4.0 12.0
5.0 5.5 4.0 12.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 12.0
7.0 6.5 6.0 12.0
* Minimum Compressive Strength of 4,000 psi
** 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method
9.14.4 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 39 of Caltrans’ latest Standard Specifications for ½ inch Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Type A or B. Asphaltic concrete pavements should be placed and compacted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications.
9.14.5 Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas extending below planned finished subgrade levels should be cleaned to firm, undisturbed soil and backfilled with Engineered Fill. Any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled.
9.14.6 Buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed/rerouted and the resulting excavations backfilled. It is suspected that demolition activities of the existing pavement will disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended that disturbed soils within pavement areas be removed and/or compacted as engineered fill.
9.14.7 An integral part of satisfactory fill placement is the stability of the placed lift of soil. Prior to placement of aggregate base, the subgrade soils should be proof-rolled by a loaded water truck (or equivalent) to verify no deflections of greater than ½ inch occur. If placed materials exhibit excessive instability as determined by a SALEM field representative, the lift will be considered unacceptable and should be remedied prior to placement of additional fill material. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.
Project No. 1-221-0084 - 20 -
March 3, 2021
9.14.8 A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material.
10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
10.1 Plan and Specification Review
10.1.1 SALEM should review the project plans and specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.
10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services
10.2.1 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will continue as Geotechnical Engineer of Record throughout the construction phase. It is important to maintain continuity of geotechnical interpretation and confirm that field conditions encountered are similar to those anticipated during design. If we are not retained for these services, we cannot assume any responsibility for others interpretation of our recommendations, and therefore the future performance of the project.
10.2.2 SALEM should be present at the site during site preparation to observe site clearing, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material.
10.2.3 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.
11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The report does not reflect variations which may occur between borings. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction is initiated.
If variations then appear, a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after performing on-site observations during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of such variations.
The findings and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present and for the proposed construction. If site conditions change due to natural processes or human intervention on the property or adjacent to the site, or changes occur in the nature or design of the project, or if there is a substantial time lapse between the submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, the conclusions and recommendations contained in our report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by SALEM and the conclusions of our report are modified or verified in writing. The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing and observations program during the construction phase. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless we have been retained to perform the on-site testing and Project No. 1-221-0084 - 21 -
March 3, 2021
review during construction. SALEM has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the owner and project design consultants.
SALEM does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, that manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection be closely followed. Further, a corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of concrete slabs and foundations in direct contact with native soil. The importation of soil and or aggregate materials to the site should be screened to determine the potential for corrosion to concrete and buried metal piping. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area.
No other warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (559) 271-9700.
Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
Ahmad Dalqamouni, Ph.D., MCE
Geotechnical Project Engineer
Central / Northern California
Dean B. Ledgerwood II, CEG
Geotechnical Manager
CEG 2613
R. Sammy Salem, MS, PE, GE
Principal Managing Engineer
RCE 52762 / RGE 2549
VICINITY MAP DATE: APPROVED BY: PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: FIGURE NO. 1-221-0084 DL 1 PROPOSED RETAIL STORE BUILDING 1023 BROADWAY STREET KING CITY, CALIFORNIA VT SCALE: 1 : 2500' Feb. 2021 NORTH 0 2,500' Thompson Canyon, CA. 2018 USGS 7.5' Topo Site Location B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 SITE PLAN DATE: APPROVED BY: PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: FIGURE NO. 1-221-0084 DL 2 PROPOSED RETAIL STORE BUILDING 1023 BROADWAY STREET KING CITY, CALIFORNIA VT SCALE: 1" = 100' Feb. 2021 0' 100' NORTH TEST BORING LOCATION Project No. 1-221-0084 A-1
Project No. 1-221-0084 A-2
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
Fieldwork for our investigation was conducted on February 2, 2021 and included a site visit, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure
1. Boring logs for our exploration are presented in figures following the text in this appendix. Borings were located in the field using existing reference points. Therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly.
The test borings were advanced with 4-inch solid flight auger rotated by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. Visual classification of the materials encountered in the test borings was generally made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487).
Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound automated trip hammer through a 30-inch free fall to drive the sampler to a maximum penetration of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches, or less if very dense or hard, is recorded as Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) on the logs of borings. Soil samples were obtained from the test borings at the depths shown on the logs of borings. The MCS samples were recovered and capped at both ends to preserve the samples at their natural moisture content; SPT samples were recovered and placed in a sealed bag to preserve their natural moisture content. At the completion of drilling and sampling, the test borings were backfilled with drill cuttings.
0 5
10 15
20 25
305
300
295
290
285
280
5/6
9/6
9/6
4/6
6/6
9/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
4/6
3/6
10/6
15/6
7/6
10/6
13/6
CL-ML
SM
SP
Sandy Silt CLAY; stiff, brown,
moist, slight plasticity.
Grades as above.
Grades as above; soft.
Silty SAND; loose, brown, moist,
fine to medium grained.
Poorly Graded SAND; medium
dense, light brown, dry, fine to
coarse grained.
Grades as above.
End of boring at 26.5ft. BSG
18 15
5 7
25 23
7.9 22.0
7.8 10.9
5.5 4.1
100.6
94.4 --
--
--
--
Test Boring: B-1 Page 1 Of:
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date: 02/02/2021
Client: Best Development Group
Project: Proppsed Retail Store Building
Location: 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA.
Drilled By: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Logged By: JC Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 308ft. AMSL
Auger Type: 6in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/E Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140lbs./30in. Final Depth to Groundwater: N/E Notes:
Figure Number A-1
ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL SYMBOLS
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % Dry
Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 305
300
295
290
285
280
3/6
4/6
5/6
9/6
11/6
12/6
4/6
4/6
5/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
2/6
3/6
12/6
CL-ML
SM
Sandy Silt CLAY; stiff, brown,
moist, slight plasticity.
Grades as above; very stiff.
Grades as above; firm.
Silty SAND; loose, light brown,
brown, fine grained.
Grades as above; loose.
Grades as above; medium dense,
brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained.
End of boring at 25ft. BSG
9 23
9 5
5 15
17.9 9.3
10.3 11.0
14.8 11.5
-- 100.8
--
--
--
--
Test Boring: B-2 Page 1 Of:
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date: 02/02/2021
Client: Best Development Group
Project: Proppsed Retail Store Building
Location: 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA.
Drilled By: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Logged By: JC Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 308ft. AMSL
Auger Type: 6in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/E Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140lbs./30in. Final Depth to Groundwater: N/E Notes:
Figure Number A-2
ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL SYMBOLS
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % Dry
Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 305
300
295
290
285
280
6/6
8/6
7/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
3/6
4/6
5/6
CL-ML
SM
Sandy Silty CLAY; stiff, brown,
moist, with some gravel, slight
plasticity.
Grades as above; firm, light brown,
moist.
Grades as above; fine grained.
Silty SAND; loose, brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained.
End of boring at 16.5ft. BSG
15 6
5 9
9.0 11.6
7.6 5.1
112.8
--
--
--
Test Boring: B-3 Page 1 Of:
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date: 02/02/2021
Client: Best Development Group
Project: Proppsed Retail Store Building
Location: 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA.
Drilled By: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Logged By: JC Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 308ft. AMSL
Auger Type: 6in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/E Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140lbs./30in. Final Depth to Groundwater: N/E Notes:
Figure Number A-3
ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL SYMBOLS
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % Dry
Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 305
300
295
290
285
280
3/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
4/6
3/6
2/6
4/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
CL-ML
SC-SM
Sandy Silty CLAY; firm, brown,
moist, slight plasticity.
Clayey Silty SAND; loose, brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained.
Grades as above.
Grades as above.
End of boring at 15ft. BSG
6 7
6 6
18.6 12.1
8.7 9.5
-- 102.4
--
--
Test Boring: B-4 Page 1 Of:
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date: 02/02/2021
Client: Best Development Group
Project: Proppsed Retail Store Building
Location: 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA.
Drilled By: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Logged By: JC Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 308ft. AMSL
Auger Type: 6in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/E Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140lbs./30in. Final Depth to Groundwater: N/E Notes:
Figure Number A-4
ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL SYMBOLS
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % Dry
Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 305
300
295
290
285
280
3/6
4/6
3/6
3/6
7/6
6/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
4/6
4/6
CL-ML Sandy Silty CLAY; firm, brown,
moist, slight plasticity.
Grades as above; stiff.
Grades as above; firm, light brown.
Grades as above.
End of boring at 15ft. BSG
7 13
6 8
17.4 19.5
8.6 6.7
-- 105.9
--
--
Test Boring: B-5 Page 1 Of:
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date: 02/02/2021
Client: Best Development Group
Project: Proppsed Retail Store Building
Location: 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA.
Drilled By: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Logged By: JC Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 308ft. AMSL
Auger Type: 6in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/E Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140lbs./30in. Final Depth to Groundwater: N/E Notes:
Figure Number A-5
ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL SYMBOLS
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % Dry
Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 305
300
295
290
285
280
3/6
5/6
5/6
3/6
5/6
7/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
CL
SM
Sandy Silty CLAY; firm, brown,
moist, low plasticity.
Grades as above; stiff.
Silty SAND; loose, brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained.
Grades as above; loose.
End of boring at 16.5ft. BSG
10 12
4 6
20.5 17.8
14.5 10.8
102.7
--
--
--
Test Boring: B-6 Page 1 Of:
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date: 02/02/2021
Client: Best Development Group
Project: Proppsed Retail Store Building
Location: 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA.
Drilled By: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Logged By: JC Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 308ft. AMSL
Auger Type: 6in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/E Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140lbs./30in. Final Depth to Groundwater: N/E Notes:
Figure Number A-6
ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL SYMBOLS
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % Dry
Density, PCF Remarks
1 0
5 10
15 20
25 305
300
295
290
285
280
4/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
6/6
6/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
2/6
3/6
4/6
CL-ML
ML
Sandy Silty SAND; firm, light
brown, dry, slight plasticity.
Grades as above; stiff.
Sandy SILT; stiff, brown, moist,
non-plastic.
Grades as above.
End of boring at 16.5ft. BSG
6 12
5 7
9.3 7.8
16.4 9.0
-- 89.5
--
--
Test Boring: B-7 Page 1 Of:
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date: 02/02/2021
Client: Best Development Group
Project: Proppsed Retail Store Building
Location: 1023 Broadway Street, King City, CA.
Drilled By: Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Logged By: JC Drill Type: CME 55 Elevation: 308ft. AMSL
Auger Type: 6in. Solid Flight Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/E Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140lbs./30in. Final Depth to Groundwater: N/E Notes:
Figure Number A-7
ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)
SOIL SYMBOLS
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % Dry
Density, PCF Remarks
1 Granular Soils Cohesive Soils
Blows Per Foot (Uncorrected) Blows Per Foot (Uncorrected)
MCS SPT MCS SPT
Very loose <5 <4 Very soft <3 <2
Loose 5-15 4-10 Soft 3-5 2-4
Medium dense 16-40 11-30 Firm 6-10 5-8
Dense 41-65 31-50 Stiff 11-20 9-15
Very dense >65 >50 Very Stiff 21-40 16-30
Hard >40 >30
MCS = Modified California Sampler
SPT = Standard Penetration Test Sampler
Notes:
Symbol Description
Strata symbols
Silty low plasticity
clay
Silty sand
Poorly graded sand
Poorly graded clayey
silty sand
Lean Clay
Silt
Soil Samplers
California sampler
Standard penetration test
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Project No. 1-221-0084 B-1
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Caltrans, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for in-situ dry density and moisture content, corrosivity, consolidation, shear strength, resistance value, expansion index, Atterberg Limits, and grain size distribution. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in the following figures.
CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE TEST DATA
ASTM D2435
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT
LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
SOAKED
CONSOLIDATION
REBOUND
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0
Boring: B-1 @ 5'
20 30 40 50 60 80
Moisture Content:
Dry Density:
22.0%
94.4 pcf
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
COLLAPSE
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.
Fresno, CA 93722
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Client:
Boring: B-2 @ 3.5'
Soil Type: Sandy Silty CLAY (CL-ML
Sample Type: Undisturbed Ring
Tested By: NL
Reviewed By:
Date of Test: 2/5/21
Test Equipment: GeoComp ShearTrac II
Loading
1.0 kip 2.0 kip 3.0 kip
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.00 2.00 3.00
Shear Rate (in/min) 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.95 1.76 2.54
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Post-Consol. Sample Height (in.) 0.886 0.791 0.785
Post-Shear Sample Height (in.) 0.855 0.777 0.757
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.4 2.4 2.4
Initial (pre-shear) Values
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf) 101.3 96.1 97.2
Saturation % 38.8 34.0 35.0
Void Ratio 0.63 0.72 0.70
Consolidated Void Ratio 0.45 0.36 0.34
Final (post-shear) Values
Final Moisture Content (%) 29.7 26.6 25.3
Dry Density (pcf) 104.3 109.7 112.5 0.80
Saturation % 119.8 128.4 140.2 39
Void Ratio 0.66 0.55 0.48 155
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
Friction Angle
Cohesion (psf)
9.3 Peak Shear Strength Values
Slope
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress
φ = 39°
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Shear Stress (psf)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1.0 kip
2.0 kip
3.0 kip
4729 W. Jacquelyn Ave.
Fresno, CA 93722
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Client:
Boring: B-6 @ 2'
Soil Type: Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Sample Type: Undisturbed Ring
Tested By: NL
Reviewed By:
Date of Test: 2/8/21
Test Equipment: GeoComp ShearTrac II
Loading
1.0 kip 2.0 kip 3.0 kip
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.00 2.00 3.00
Shear Rate (in/min) 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 1.04 1.71 2.39
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Post-Consol. Sample Height (in.) 0.935 0.865 0.797
Post-Shear Sample Height (in.) 0.927 0.848 0.773
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.4 2.4 2.4
Initial (pre-shear) Values
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf) 108.9 102.1 98.2
Saturation % 102.6 86.5 78.8
Void Ratio 0.56 0.66 0.73
Consolidated Void Ratio 0.46 0.44 0.38
Final (post-shear) Values
Final Moisture Content (%) 19.8 21.0 21.5
Dry Density (pcf) 116.9 113.8 115.3 0.68
Saturation % 125.2 139.8 171.8 34
Void Ratio 0.43 0.41 0.34 363
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
Cohesion (psf)
21.1 Peak Shear Strength Values
Slope
Friction Angle
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress
φ = 34°
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Shear Stress (psf)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1.0 kip
2.0 kip
3.0 kip
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-1 @ 5'
#100 71.2% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 67.7% Sandy Silty CLAY (CL-ML)
#16 98.5%
#30 96.9%
#50 85.9%
#8 99.2%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.6%
0% 32% 68%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-1 @ 10'
#100 85.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 67.7% Sandy Silty CLAY (CL-ML)
#16 99.9%
#30 99.6%
#50 97.6%
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 32% 68%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-2 @ 3.5'
#100 70.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 61.4% Sandy Silty CLAY (CL-ML)
#16 94.4%
#30 93.1%
#50 88.2%
#8 95.2%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 97.1% Coefficients
#4 95.9%
4% 35% 61%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-3 @ 15'
#100 22.6% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 12.4% Silty SAND (SM)
#16 99.8%
#30 98.6%
#50 77.2%
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 88% 12%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-4 @ 3.5'
#100 55.2% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 45.3% Clayey silty SAND (SC-SM)
#16 99.5%
#30 98.1%
#50 85.5%
#8 99.8%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 55% 45%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-5 @ 3.5'
#100 73.6% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 69.9% Sandy Silty CLAY (CL-ML)
#16 92.8%
#30 88.1%
#50 82.0%
#8 97.2%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.5%
0% 30% 70%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-6 @ 0 - 3'
#100 55.2% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 53.6% Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
#16 73.7%
#30 66.8%
#50 60.8%
#8 83.6%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 97.4% Coefficients
#4 92.6%
7% 39% 54%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-6 @ 10'
#100 82.8% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 67.3% Sandy Silty CLAY (CL-ML)
#16 99.8%
#30 99.4%
#50 97.0%
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 33% 67%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Boring: B-7 @ 15'
#100 82.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 58.4% Sandy SILT (ML)
#16 99.9%
#30 99.6%
#50 96.7%
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 42% 58%
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date Sampled: 2/2/21 Date Tested: 2/5/21
Sampled By: SEG Tested By: NS
Sample Location: B-1 @ 10'
1 2 3 1 2 3
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare 27.79 28.95 29.20 29.38 32.00 31.91 Weight of Dry Soil & Tare 26.65 27.58 27.86 27.73 29.88 29.73 Weight of Water 1.14 1.37 1.34 1.65 2.12 2.18
Weight of Tare 20.61 20.53 21.00 20.62 20.84 20.96
Weight of Dry Soil 6.04 7.05 6.86 7.11 9.04 8.77
Water Content 18.9 19.4 19.5 23.2 23.5 24.9
Number of Blows 35 24 18
Plastic Limit : 19 Liquid Limit : 24
Plasticity Index : 5
Unified Soil Classification : CL/ML
Atterberg Limits Determination
ASTM D4318
Run Number
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
LIQUID LIMIT, %
CL
CH
OH
or
MH
CL-ML
ML
OL or
ML
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date Sampled: 2/2/21 Date Tested: 2/5/21
Sampled By: SEG Tested By: NS
Sample Location: B-3 @ 15'
1 2 3 1 2 3
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare
Weight of Dry Soil & Tare
Weight of Water Does Not Roll Slides On Cup
Weight of Tare
Weight of Dry Soil
Water Content
Number of Blows
Plastic Limit : Liquid Limit :
Plasticity Index : Non - Plastic
Unified Soil Classification :
Run Number
Atterberg Limits Determination
ASTM D4318
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
LIQUID LIMIT, %
CL
CH
OH
or
MH
CL-ML
ML
OL or
ML
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date Sampled: 2/2/21 Date Tested: 2/8/21
Sampled By: SEG Tested By: NS
Sample Location: B-6 @ 0 - 3'
1 2 3 1 2 3
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare 28.87 29.07 28.90 30.46 32.01 33.59 Weight of Dry Soil & Tare 27.59 27.76 27.56 28.04 29.12 30.18 Weight of Water 1.28 1.31 1.34 2.42 2.89 3.41
Weight of Tare 21.05 21.13 20.84 20.89 20.92 20.85
Weight of Dry Soil 6.54 6.63 6.72 7.15 8.20 9.33
Water Content 19.6 19.8 19.9 33.8 35.2 36.5
Number of Blows 30 25 23
Plastic Limit : 20 Liquid Limit : 36
Plasticity Index : 16
Unified Soil Classification : CL
Run Number
Atterberg Limits Determination
ASTM D4318
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
LIQUID LIMIT, %
CL
CH
OH
or
MH
CL-ML
ML
OL or
ML
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date Sampled: 2/2/21 Date Tested: 2/8/21
Sampled By: SEG Tested By: NS
Sample Location: B-7 @ 15'
1 2 3 1 2 3
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare 28.20 28.18 28.57 30.19 30.49 32.80 Weight of Dry Soil & Tare 26.83 26.90 27.21 28.50 28.69 30.40 Weight of Water 1.37 1.28 1.36 1.69 1.80 2.40
Weight of Tare 20.33 20.67 20.77 20.89 20.94 20.29
Weight of Dry Soil 6.50 6.23 6.44 7.61 7.75 10.11
Water Content 21.1 20.5 21.1 22.2 23.2 23.7
Number of Blows 26 21 20
Plastic Limit : 21 Liquid Limit : 22
Plasticity Index : 1
Unified Soil Classification : ML
Run Number
Atterberg Limits Determination
ASTM D4318
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
LIQUID LIMIT, %
CL
CH
OH
or
MH
CL-ML
ML
OL or
ML
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM D4829
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date Sampled: 2/2/21 Date Tested: 2/5/21
Sampled By: SEG Tested By: IM
Sample Location: B-6 @ 0 - 3'
1 2 3
Weight of Soil & Mold, g. 576.6
Weight of Mold, g. 187.8
Weight of Soil, g. 388.8
Wet Density, pcf 117.3
Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), g. 800.0
Weight of Moisture Sample (Dry), g. 722.0
Moisture Content, % 10.8
Dry Density, pcf 105.8
Specific Gravity of Soil 2.7
Degree of Saturation, % 49.3
Time Inital 30 min 1 hr 6 hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs
Dial Reading 0 0.0379 0.0393 -- -- 0.0426
Expansion Index measured = 42.6 Exp. Index Potential Exp.
Expansion Index 50 = 42.1 0 - 20 Very Low
21 - 50 Low
51 - 90 Medium
Expansion Index = 42 91 - 130 High
>130 Very High
Trial #
Expansion Potential Table
Soil Description: Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date Sampled: 2/2/21 Date Tested: 2/8/21
Sampled By: SEG Tested By: MZ \ RM
Sample Location: B-6 @ 0 - 3'
Soil Description: Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
1 2 3
376.6 260.2 112.2
11.3 12.4 13.6
123.5 121.5 116.8
95 52 30
7.5 8.5 8.7
0.9 0.5 0.3
25 15 13
ASTM D2844
Controlling R-Value 18
Resistance R-Value
and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils
Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in.
R-Value by Stabilometer
R-Value by Expansion Pressure N/A
R-Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure 17.5
Specimen
Exudation Pressure, psi
Moisture at Test, %
Dry Density, pcf
Expansion Pressure, psf
Thickness by Stabilometer, in.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
R- Value
Exudation Pressure, psi
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 9.0
10.0 11.0
12.0 13.0
14.0 15.0
16.0 17.0
18.0 19.0
20.0 21.0
22.0 23.0
24.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0
Cover Thickness by Stabilometer, in.
Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in.
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CA
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Date Sampled: 2/2/21 Date Tested: 2/5/21
Sampled By: SEG Tested By: NS
Soil Description: Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
110 mg/kg 79 mg/kg
100 mg/kg 79 mg/kg
100 mg/kg 78 mg/kg
103 mg/kg 79 mg/kg
SO4 - Modified CTM 417 & Cl - Modified CTM 417/422
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
1a.
Sample
Number
Sample
Location
Soluble Sulfate
SO4-S
Soluble Chloride
Cl pH
7.8 7.8
B-6 @ 0 - 3'
7.8 Average: 7.8
1b.
1c.
B-6 @ 0 - 3'
B-6 @ 0 - 3'
Project Name: Retail Store Building - King City, CADate Sampled: 2/2/21 Sampled By: SEG
Date Tested: 2/5/21
Soil Description: Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) Tested By: NS
Chloride Content: 79 mg/Kg Initial Sample Weight: 700 gms Sulfate Content: 103 mg/Kg Test Box Constant: 1.010 cm
Soil pH: 7.8
Test Data:
Trial # Water Added
(mL)
Meter Dial
Reading
Multiplier
Setting
Resistance
(ohms)
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
1 50 2.3 1,000 2,300 2,323
2 100 1.3 1,000 1,300 1,313
3 150 1.3 1,000 1,300 1,313
4 200 1.4 1,000 1,400 1,414
1,177 ohm-cm
CTM 643
SOIL RESISTIVITY
Project Number: 1-221-0084
Sample Location: B-6 @ 0 - 3'
Minimum Resistivity:
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185 205 225
Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Water Added (mL)
Project No. 1-221-0084 C-1
APPENDIX C
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence.
1.0 SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials.
2.0 PERFORMANCE: The Contractor should be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work should be inspected and tested by a representative of SALEM Engineering Group, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, should be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he should make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications should be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect.
No earthwork should be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor should notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.
The Contractor should assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement should apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor should defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers.
3.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials should be densified to no less that 95 percent of relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest edition), or as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests should be determined by the Soils Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications should be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer.
4.0 SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The Contractor should make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor should not be relieved of liability for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.
5.0 DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor should assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all Project No. 1-221-0084 C-2
claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work. Site preparation should consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill.
6.0 CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor should accept the site in this present condition and should demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials should become the property of the Contractor and should be removed from the site.
Tree root systems in proposed improvement areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface. Backfill of tree root excavations is not permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials should not be permitted.
7.0 SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill and/or building or slab loads should be prepared as outlined above, scarified to a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to 95 percent relative compaction.
Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil should be moisture-conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features should be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas which are to receive fill materials should be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any fill material.
8.0 EXCAVATION: All excavation should be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over-excavation below the grades specified should be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and should be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements.
9.0 FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material should be moved or compacted without the presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills should be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer.
10.0 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting should not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill should be surface-compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance.
11.0 SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material should be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations should not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified.
12.0 DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" should include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed.
The term “Standard Specifications”: hereinafter referred to, is the most recent edition of the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation. The term "relative compaction" Project No. 1-221-0084 C-3
refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest edition).
13.0 PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor should prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon ASTM D1557. The finished subgrades should be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.
14.0 AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material should be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material should conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class 2 material, ¾-inch or 1½-inches maximum size. The aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon ASTM D1557. The aggregate base material should be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course should be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
15.0 AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase should be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material should conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for Class 2 Subbase material. The aggregate subbase material should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on ASTM D1557, and it should be spread and compacted in accordance with the Standard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase should be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
16.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing should consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans.
The viscosity grade of the asphalt should be PG 64-10, unless otherwise stipulated or local conditions warrant more stringent grade. The mineral aggregate should be Type A or B, ½ inch maximum size, medium grading, and should conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials should conform to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture should conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course should be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing should be rolled with a combination steel-wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in the Standard Specifications. The surface course should be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.
APPENDIX D
NATURALLY-OCCURRING ASBESTOS SOIL ASSESSMENT
4729 W. Jacquelyn Avenue
Fresno, California 93723
(559) 271-9700 Office
(559) 275-0827 Fax
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
September 27, 2021 Job No. 1-421-0916
Mr. Terry Johnson
Best Development Group
2580 Sierra Boulevard, Suite E
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 482-8330
Email: [email protected]
Subject: NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS SOIL ASSESSMENT
Proposed Commercial Development
1023 Broadway Street
King City, CA
Dear Mr. Johnson:
At your request and authorization, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) has prepared this Naturally Occurring Asbestos Soil Assessment (NOAA) for the Proposed Commercial Development property located at 1023 Broadway Street in King City, California. The investigation was performed in accordance with SALEM’s Proposal No. P1-421-1398 dated August 23, 2021.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (559) 271-9700.
Respectfully submitted,
SALEM Engineering Group, Inc.
Shannon Lodge, PG, QSD
Senior Project Manager
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
NATURALLY OCCURRING
ASBESTOS
SOIL ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1023 BROADWAY STREET
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
SALEM PROJECT NO. 1-421-0916
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
MR. TERRY JOHNSON
BEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP
2580 SIERRA BOULEVARD, SUITE E
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
PREPARED BY:
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
4729 W. JACQUELYN AVENUE
FRESNO, CA 93722
P: (559) 271-9700
F: (559) 275-0827
www.salem.net
GEOTECHNICAL ● ENVIRONMENTAL ● GEOLOGY ● MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION ● FORENSIC ● LABORATORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Job No. 1-421-0916
1.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES.................................................................. 2
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Pre Field Activities .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Site Safety ......................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Permits .............................................................................................................................. 3
4.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 3
4.1 Soil Sampling Procedures ................................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Soil Sampling Analysis.................................................................................................................... 4
5.0 FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................... 4
5.1 Topography ...................................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology ............................................................................................. 4
5.3 Local Surface Lithology .................................................................................................................. 5
5.4 Surrounding Property Use ................................................................................................................ 5
5.5 Regional Climate ............................................................................................................................. 5
5.6 Field Observations ........................................................................................................................... 6
5.7 Analytical Results............................................................................................................................ 6
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 6
7.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................................. 7
8.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 7
FIGURES
Site Location Map ........................................................................................................................................ .1 Site Map with Soil Sample Locations .......................................................................................................... .2
APPENDICES
Laboratory Analytical Reports .................................................................................................................... .A 4729 W. Jacquelyn Avenue
Fresno, California 93723
(559) 271-9700 Office
(559) 275-0827 Fax
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
September 27, 2021 Job No. 1-421-0916
NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS SOIL ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1023 BROADWAY STREET
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
1.0 SUMMARY
Salem Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) performed a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Soil Assessment (NOAA) to investigate the Proposed Commercial Development property located at 1023 Broadway Street in King City, California (subject property). The subject property is anticipated to be developed as commercial to include a retail store, a drive-thru restaurant, and a lodging facility.
The subject property consists of one undeveloped parcel totaling approximately 4.43 acres of land located on the southeast side of Broadway Street, north of California State Highway 101 in King City, Monterey County, California (Figure 1). The subject property is identified by the Monterey County Assessor as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 026-391-025-000. Research by SALEM indicates that the subject property was historically developed with commercial structures which were demolished sometime prior to 2004. In 2007 the subject property was developed with an asphalt paved access road and parking area along the southwest boundary which operated as Raymundo’s Auto Sales until sometime prior to 2009. No permanent structures were associated with the operations of Raymundo’s Auto Sales. No structures are currently located on the subject property.
The subject property is bordered to the northwest by Broadway Street followed by King City Cemetery, to the northeast by a vacant retail building, asphalt paved parking, and a storage yard utilized as tractor-trailer parking, to the southeast by a Monterey County Sheriff’s Department facility, to the south by an off-ramp of California State Highway 101, and to the southwest by Lynn’s Too Valero service station and associated convenience store and a Denny’s restaurant. A site plan that shows the subject property and adjacent properties is included as Figure 2.
The investigation was performed in accordance with SALEM’s Proposal No. P1-421-1398 dated August 23, 2021.
The following data summary is based on a review of field and laboratory data obtained during SALEM’s September 2021 Phase II NOAA investigation at the subject property:
• According to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) records for the former Terrible Herbst #100 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site at 1140 Broadway Street, located approximately 450 feet west of the subject property, depth to groundwater was reported to have been first encountered at approximately 28 feet below ground surface (bgs) with an average flow of 0.005-foot per foot directed to the north-northwest. However, local groundwater level and flow direction may vary due to seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, usage demands, geology, and/or surface topography. Groundwater was not encountered during the course of this investigation.
Project No. 1-421-0196
September 27, 2021
Page No. 2
• The soils encountered during SALEM’s March 2021 Geotechnical Investigation generally consisted of sandy silty clay and sandy lean clay interbedded with clayey silty sand, silty sand, and sandy silts to the maximum depth explored of 26.5 feet bgs. The near surface soils exhibited moderate compressibility characteristics, slight collapse potential, and low expansion potential. • SALEM collected nine surface soil samples (SS-1 through SS-9) from depths of 0- to 6-inches bgs.
Sample SS-1 was collected from an approximately 2,000 square foot soil stockpile located in the southeast portion of the subject property. Samples SS-2 through SS-7 and SS-9 were collected from surface soils across the subject property. Sample SS-8 was collected from an approximately 4,000 square foot area of gravel in the northwest portion of the subject property. All sample locations are presented on Figure 2.
• Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) fibers were not identified above laboratory method detection limits in any of the soil samples analyzed. Data suggests that NOA is not a constituent of potential concern (COPC) in soil at the subject property.
Based on these results, SALEM believes that no additional assessment activities are required. The subject property is suitable for unrestricted use. No NOA is evident on the subject property, therefore asbestos related air monitoring during construction activities should not be required.
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES
SALEM conducted a NOAA on behalf of the Best Development Group to investigate the Proposed Commercial Development property located at 1023 Broadway Street in King City, California (subject property – see Figure 1). The investigation was performed in accordance with SALEM’s Proposal No. P1- 421-1398 dated August 23, 2021.
The subject property comprises an approximately 4.43-acre irregular-shaped parcel (Monterey County APN 026-391-025-000) at 1023 Broadway Street in King City, California. In an email conversation with Mr. Shawn Boyle with the Monterey Bay Area Air Resources District (MBARD), recent findings suggest that NOA in the geological veins in the hills and mountains above King City appear to have migrated into the lower King City vicinity. MBARD presently does not know where the NOA delineation lies in the King City vicinity, as such MBARD is requiring sampling/mitigation for NOA at all new construction projects in the subject property vicinity. Best Development Group requested that SALEM conduct this NOAA for NOA content in surface soils of the subject property. Data will be used to determine if asbestos mitigation measures will be required during construction, or to apply for a Geologic Exemption with MBARD as appropriate.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The Phase II NOAA scope of services included the following:
• Coordination of pre-field activities including procurement of any necessary permits, evaluation of groundwater data, and access permission;
• Development of a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP); • Collection of nine surface soil samples of the subject property; • Analytical testing of soil; and
• Preparation of a report that documents field activities, analytical results, and summarizes the findings.
Project No. 1-421-0196
September 27, 2021
Page No. 3
3.1 Pre Field Activities
3.1.1 Site Safety
SALEM completed a subject property HSP for the work proposed at the subject property. A copy of the HSP was kept on-site during field activities. The HSP detailed the work to be performed, safety precautions, emergency response procedures, nearest hospital information, hospital route maps, emergency contact numbers, and onsite personnel responsible for managing emergency situations (intended to protect on-site workers and the public).
3.1.2 Permits
Permits for the soil sampling were not required for this scope of work.
4.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
The current plan for subject property development is to have a balanced cut-fill approach, with no additional import from an off-site source. The subject property is already level and graded so the only excavation (other than surface grading) is anticipated to be associated with a proposed slab-on-grade compaction and construction of the proposed on-site structures (less than 5 feet bgs), and excavation and installation of the subsurface utilities (depth of approximately 2 feet bgs).
Field work for the soil sampling was performed on September 2, 2021. Soil sample locations are shown on Figure 2.
4.1 Soil Sampling Procedures
Nine discrete surface soil samples, SS-1 through SS-9, were collected across the subject property at depths between 0 to 6 inches bgs at locations shown on Figure 2.
The samples were collected by scraping surface soil directly into unused, clean, laboratory-supplied sample jars, the jars were sealed with Teflon-lined lids (taking care to remove any loose soil or organic debris from the jar threads), and labeled for chemical analysis.
A sample label was affixed to each container. Sample label information included:
• SALEM’s job number;
• Sample name (e.g. SS-#);
• Date and time of sample collection; and
• Sampler’s initials.
The soil samples were sealed in a zip-lock bag and packed for transport to the analytical laboratory. The samples were wrapped with bubble wrap packaging material to minimize disturbance and potential breakage of the sample containers during shipping.
A description of the soil was recorded on a field logs in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil type across the subject property was observed to be heterogeneous; therefore, additional analyses were not necessary in accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC’s) protocol for Biased Sampling of Heterogeneous Conditions.
Project No. 1-421-0196
September 27, 2021
Page No. 4
4.1 Soil Sampling Analysis
The 0- to 6-inch soil samples collected from the subject property were analyzed using CARB Method 435 by PLM with a detection limit of 1%, reporting the percentages of regulated asbestiform and non-regulated asbestiform (Libby amphibole) mineral structures counted that are less and greater than 5 microns. Due to the difficulty in speciation of amphiboles by PLM, the laboratory was instructed to report non-specific amphiboles as “Suspect Libby amphiboles” when quantifying identified fibers and calculating percent by PLM.
Laboratory analytical services for NOA-related soil samples were provided by Forensic Analytical Consulting Services of Hayward, California. Forensic Analytical is certified by NVLAP for the specified analyses. Laboratory analytical results and chain-of-custody documentation are provided in Appendix A.
5.0 FINDINGS
5.1 Topography
Based on a review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle – King City, California (2012), the subject property is relatively level and slopes gently to the southeast.
Locally, the subject property vicinity slopes to the southwest at approximately 25 feet per mile. The subject property is situated at an approximate elevation of 310 feet above mean sea level.
5.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology
The subject property is located within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges stretch approximately 600 miles from the Oregon border to the Santa Ynez River and fall into two sub-provinces: the ranges north of San Francisco Bay and those from the San Francisco Bay south to Santa Barbara County. The northern ranges lie east of the San Andreas Fault Zone, whereas most of the southern ranges are to the west. The province contains many elongate ranges and narrow valleys that are approximately parallel to the coast, although the coast usually shows a somewhat more northerly trend than do the ridges and valleys. Thus, some valleys intersect the shore at acute angles and some mountains terminate abruptly at the sea
The dominant characteristic of the Coast Ranges is its division into elongate topographic and lithographic strips underlain by discrete basement rocks that are separated by profound structural discontinuities. The pattern extends east and probably also west onto the sea floor. On the east, concealed beneath the Central Valley, is the enigmatic boundary between the Sierra Nevada basement and the Coast Range Franciscan.
Most of the boundary between the Sierran and Franciscan basement lies beneath several thousand feet of late Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary rocks in the Salinas Valley. North of Red Bluff, the boundary emerges as the South Fork Mountain Thrust, separating the Klamath Mountains from the Coast Ranges.
Westward, the next major boundary is the San Andreas Fault Zone, which separates Franciscan basement from the granitic-metamorphic basement of the Salinian Block. South of Monterey, the Sur-Naciemento Fault Zone separates Salinian rocks from more Franciscan basement to the southwest. Another boundary should occur farther west, offshore, where Franciscan basement is replaced by normal oceanic crust.
King City is located in the central portion of Salinas Valley. Salinas Valley is narrow, northwest trending structural basin within the Coast Ranges of central California comprising approximately 2.1 million acres of land. The Salinas basin is comprised of sedimentary deposits formed during the Miocene. The west side of the valley has down-faulted the basin floor along the King City fault resulting in basin-fill sediments up to 15,000 feet thick in the west side of the valley, and about 10,000 feet thick along the east side. Geologic units composing the Salinas Basin include the Monterey Formation (Miocene age), the Purisima Formation Project No. 1-421-0196
September 27, 2021
Page No. 5
(Pliocene age), the Paso Robles Formation (Plio-Pleistocene age), and fluvial and alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene to Holocene age). These sedimentary deposits are underlain by Cretaceous age granitic basement rock. The Salinas River is the major hydrologic feature of the Salinas Valley and is located approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The Salinas River originates near Santa Margarita and drains northwesterly into Monterey Bay.
The Upper Valley Subbasin (Subbasin) occupies the southern half of Salinas Valley and is within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. King City is located in the central portion of the Subbasin. The aquifer in the Subbasin is unconfined and is primarily recharged by percolation of surface water from the Salinas River and its tributaries. Water-bearing units of the Subbasin include the Paso Robles Formation and the younger fluvial and alluvial fan deposits. Groundwater flow is generally to the northwest. Groundwater is the sole source of the municipal water supply for King City. The 2020 annual Water Quality Report by Cal Water indicates that six production wells are employed to deliver up to 2.4 million gallons of groundwater per day with an average hardness of 213 parts per million (ppm).
According to RWQCB records for the former Terrible Herbst #100 LUST site at 1140 Broadway Street, located approximately 450 feet west of the subject property, depth to groundwater was reported to have been first encountered at approximately 28 feet bgs with an average flow of 0.005-foot per foot directed to the north-northwest. However, local groundwater level and flow direction may vary due to seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, usage demands, geology, and/or surface topography. Groundwater was not encountered during the course of this investigation.
5.3 Local Surface Lithology
Surface soils primarily consist of sand, silt, and clay materials to approximately 3 feet bgs. Based on review of the Geologic Map of California: Thompson Canyon Quadrangle (Dibble & Minch, 2006), the area of the subject site is in an area mapped as Holocene Alluvial gravel, sand and silt/clay mixtures of valley areas (Qa).
The United States Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey, the surface soil at the subject property consists of Mocho silty clay loam in the northwest portion of the subject property and Pico fine sandy loam in the southeast portion of the subject property. The Mocho silty clay loam is a Class C hydrologic group, with moderately high infiltration rates; the Pico fine sandy loam is a class A hydrologic group with moderately high to high infiltration rates. According to SALEM’s March 3, 2021 geotechnical investigation, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. The soils encountered generally consisted of sandy silty clay and sandy lean clay interbedded with clayey silty sand, silty sand, and sandy silts to the maximum depth explored of 26.5 feet bgs. The near surface soils exhibited moderate compressibility characteristics, slight collapse potential, and low expansion potential.
5.4 Surrounding Property Use
The subject property is bordered to the northwest by Broadway Street followed by King City Cemetery, to the northeast by a vacant retail building, asphalt paved parking, and a storage yard utilized as tractor-trailer parking, to the southeast by a Monterey County Sheriff’s Department facility, to the south by an off-ramp of California State Highway 101, and to the southwest by Lynn’s Too Valero service station and associated convenience store and a Denny’s restaurant. A site plan that shows the subject property and adjacent properties is included as Figure 2.
5.5 Regional Climate
The climate at the subject property is characterized by very warm and mostly dry summers, with cool wet winters. Summer high temperatures averaging 87 degrees Fahrenheit and winter low temperatures averaging 64 degrees Fahrenheit. The climate is classified as semi-arid bordering on Mediterranean with an average rainfall of approximately 11.25 inches per year.
Project No. 1-421-0196
September 27, 2021
Page No. 6
5.6 Field Observations
At the time of SALEM’s September 2, 2021 NOAA site investigation, the subject property was vacant land with asphalt-paved access road and parking lot along the southwest portion of the property. Exposed surface soils did not exhibit obvious signs of discoloration at the subject property. No standing water or major depressions were observed on the subject property. A relatively small stockpile of soil was observed near the south boundary of the subject property; soils comprising the stockpile were consistent with surface soils and appeared to have originated form the subject property. An approximately 4,000 square foot area located in the northeast portion of the subject property was graveled, the gravel was sampled for NOA analysis as sample SS-8. No structures were observed on the subject property.
5.7 Analytical Results
Copies of the laboratory reports and chain-of-custody documentation are included in Appendix A.
The 0- to 6-inch surface soil samples collected from the subject property, were analyzed using CARB Method 435 by PLM with a detection limit of 1% and did not contain any detectable fibrous components or asbestos.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following data summary is based on a review of field and laboratory data obtained during SALEM’s September 2021 Phase II NOAA investigation at the subject property:
• According to RWQCB records for the former Terrible Herbst #100 LUST site at 1140 Broadway Street, located approximately 450 feet west of the subject property, depth to groundwater was reported to have been first encountered at approximately 28 feet bgs with an average flow of 0.005- foot per foot directed to the north-northwest. However, local groundwater level and flow direction may vary due to seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, usage demands, geology, and/or surface topography. Groundwater was not encountered during the course of this investigation. • The soils encountered during SALEM’s March 2021 Geotechnical Investigation generally consisted of sandy silty clay and sandy lean clay interbedded with clayey silty sand, silty sand, and sandy silts to the maximum depth explored of 26.5 feet bgs. The near surface soils exhibited moderate compressibility characteristics, slight collapse potential, and low expansion potential. • SALEM collected nine surface soil samples (SS-1 through SS-9) from depths of 0- to 6-inches bgs.
Sample SS-1 was collected from an approximately 2,000 square foot soil stockpile located in the southeast portion of the subject property. Samples SS-2 through SS-7 and SS-9 were collected from surface soils across the subject property. Sample SS-8 was collected from an approximately 4,000 square foot area of gravel in the northwest portion of the subject property. All sample locations are presented on Figure 2.
• NOA fibers were not identified above laboratory method detection limits in any of the soil samples analyzed. Data suggests that NOA is not a COPCs in soil at the subject property. • Based on these results, SALEM believes that no additional assessment activities are required. The subject property is suitable for unrestricted use. No NOA is evident on the subject property, therefore asbestos related air monitoring during construction activities should not be required.
Project No. 1-421-0196
September 27, 2021
Page No. 7
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This Phase II NOAA Report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Best Development Group, Planning & Engineering and its affiliates. Unauthorized use of or reliance on the information contained in this report, unless given express written consent by SALEM, is strictly prohibited.
The purpose of an environmental site assessment is to reasonably evaluate the potential for adverse impact from past practices at a given property or neighboring properties. In performing an environmental site assessment, it is understood that a balance must be struck between a reasonable inquiry into the environmental issues and an exhaustive analysis of each conceivable issue of potential concern. The professional opinions in this report are based in part on the interpretation of data from discrete sampling locations that may not represent conditions at locations not sampled.
The property owners are solely responsible for notifying all governmental agencies and the public of the existence, release, or disposal of any hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum products at the subject property, whether before, during, or after the performance of SALEM’s services. SALEM assumes neither responsibility nor liability for any claim, loss of property value, damage, or injury which results from hazardous materials, wastes or petroleum products being present or encountered at a given site.
8.0 REFERENCES
The following list summarizes the references utilized in preparing this report:
• Dibble, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2006, Geologic Map of California: Thompson Canyon Quadrangle:
Monterey County. California. Dibblee Geological Foundation., DF-250, scale 1:24,000 • California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 124, Guidelines for Geologic Investigations of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in California, 2002. • SALEM Engineering Group, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Retail Store Building, 1023 Broadway (APN 026-391-025), King City, California, March 3, 2021.
If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (559) 271-9700.
Respectfully submitted,
SALEM Engineering Group, Inc.
Shannon Lodge, PG, QSD
Senior Project Manager
James S. Robert, L.G., L.H.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
Figures
Subject Property
SITE LOCATION
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1023 BROADWAY STREET
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
SCALE: DATE:
NTS Sept. 2021
JR
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:
SL
PROJECT NO.:
1-421-0916
FIGURE NO.:
1 N
N
SITE MAP WITH SAMPLE LOCATIONS SCALE: DATE:
As Shown
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY:
SL
PROJECT NO.: FIGURE NO.:
2 Sept. 2021
JR
1-421-0916
SS-1
SS-2
EXPLAINATION:
S-#
Approximate Soil Sample Location
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1023 BROADWAY STREET
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
APPROXIMATE SCALE
0 FT 100 FT
Approximate Soil Stockpile Location
Subject Property Boundary
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-7
SS-6
SS-9
SS-8
APPENDIX
A
Final Report
Bulk Asbestos Material Analysis
(Air Resources Board Method 435, June 6, 1991)
Salem Engineering Group
8711 Monroe Ct.
Suite A
Richard McCondichie
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Client ID:
Report Number:
Date Received:
Date Printed:
Date Analyzed:
N014179
L1109
09/14/21
09/14/21
Job ID/Site: 1-421-0916 - Proposed Commercial Development, King City L1109 SGSFL Job ID:
09/07/21
Total Samples Submitted:
Total Samples Analyzed:
9 PLM Report Number:N/A 9
Sample Preparation and Analysis:
Samples were analyzed by the Air Resources Board's Method 435, Determination of Asbestos Content of Serpentine Aggregate. Samples were ground to 200 particle size in the laboratory. Approximately 1 pint was retained for analysis. Samples were prepared for observation according to the guidelines of Exception I and Exception II as defined by the 435 Method. Samples which contained less than 10% asbestos were prepared for observation according to the point count technique as defined by the 435 Method. This analysis was performed with a standard cross-hair reticle.
Sample ID Layer Description Lab Number
SS-1 12469550 Brown Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method.
SS-2 12469551 Brown Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method.
SS-3 12469552 Brown Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method.
SS-4 12469553 Brown Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method. 1 of 3
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-42 Final Report
Bulk Asbestos Material Analysis
(Air Resources Board Method 435, June 6, 1991)
Salem Engineering Group
8711 Monroe Ct.
Suite A
Richard McCondichie
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Client ID:
Report Number:
Date Received:
Date Printed:
Date Analyzed:
N014179
L1109
09/14/21
09/14/21
Job ID/Site: 1-421-0916 - Proposed Commercial Development, King City L1109 SGSFL Job ID:
09/07/21
Total Samples Submitted:
Total Samples Analyzed:
9 PLM Report Number:N/A 9
Sample Preparation and Analysis:
Samples were analyzed by the Air Resources Board's Method 435, Determination of Asbestos Content of Serpentine Aggregate. Samples were ground to 200 particle size in the laboratory. Approximately 1 pint was retained for analysis. Samples were prepared for observation according to the guidelines of Exception I and Exception II as defined by the 435 Method. Samples which contained less than 10% asbestos were prepared for observation according to the point count technique as defined by the 435 Method. This analysis was performed with a standard cross-hair reticle.
Sample ID Layer Description Lab Number
SS-5 12469554 Brown Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method.
SS-6 12469555 Brown Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method.
SS-7 12469556 Brown Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method.
SS-8 12469557 Grey Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method. 2 of 3
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-42 Final Report
Bulk Asbestos Material Analysis
(Air Resources Board Method 435, June 6, 1991)
Salem Engineering Group
8711 Monroe Ct.
Suite A
Richard McCondichie
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Client ID:
Report Number:
Date Received:
Date Printed:
Date Analyzed:
N014179
L1109
09/14/21
09/14/21
Job ID/Site: 1-421-0916 - Proposed Commercial Development, King City L1109 SGSFL Job ID:
09/07/21
Total Samples Submitted:
Total Samples Analyzed:
9 PLM Report Number:N/A 9
Sample Preparation and Analysis:
Samples were analyzed by the Air Resources Board's Method 435, Determination of Asbestos Content of Serpentine Aggregate. Samples were ground to 200 particle size in the laboratory. Approximately 1 pint was retained for analysis. Samples were prepared for observation according to the guidelines of Exception I and Exception II as defined by the 435 Method. Samples which contained less than 10% asbestos were prepared for observation according to the point count technique as defined by the 435 Method. This analysis was performed with a standard cross-hair reticle.
Sample ID Layer Description Lab Number
SS-9 12469558 Brown Soil
Visual Estimation Results:
100
Visual estimation percentage: None Detected
Asbestos type(s) detected: None Detected
Matrix percentage of entire
Comment: This result meets the requirements of Exception I as defined by the 435 Method.
Tad Thrower, Laboratory Supervisor, Hayward Laboratory
Note: Limit of Quantification (LOQ) = 0.25%. Trace denotes the presence of asbestos below the LOQ. ND = None Detected. Analytical results and reports are generated by SGS Forensic Laboratories (SGSFL) at the request of and for the exclusive use of the person or entity (client) named on such report.
Results, reports or copies of same will not be released by SGSFL to any third party without prior written request from client. This report applies only to the sample(s) tested.
Supporting laboratory documentation is available upon request. This report must not be reproduced except in full, unless approved by SGSFL. The client is solely responsiblefor the use and interpretation of test results and reports requested from SGSFL. SGSFL is not able to assess the degree of hazard resulting from materials analyzed. SGS Forensic Laboratories reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. All samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted. 3 of 3
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-42
APPENDIX E
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
GROCERY OUTLET STORE
1023 BROADWAY STREET
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
WJVA Project No. 21‐53
PREPARED FOR
EMC PLANNING
301 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE, SUITE C
MONTEREY, CA 93940
PREPARED BY
WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.
VISALIA, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 20, 2021
113 North Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 2
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project includes a 30‐foot single‐story, 18,187 square foot Grocery Outlet store with 72 parking spaces and 13,908 square feet of landscaping. The project also proposes demolition of the existing driveway facing Broadway Street and the reconstruction of the existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
The proposed project would be similar to a typical grocery store in California. It would not include any type of food preparation on site. Semi‐trailer deliveries would occur twice per week at the loading dock. These truck deliveries would be scheduled for early morning prior to the opening of the store. There would also be four to five smaller trucks delivering bread, beverages, etc. that also deliver products to the store each day.
The proposed project would operate seven days a week between the hours of 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM, with approximately 20‐30 full‐time employees, in two shifts. A monument sign would be constructed along Broadway Street. Construction is estimated to commence in the Spring of 2022 with completion in the Fall 2022.
This report is based upon the project site plan prepared by TSD Engineering, dated March 3, 2021, noise measurements obtained by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA) at the project site, reference noise measurements obtained at existing similar facilities and information provided to WJVA by the project applicant concerning the proposed hours of operation and truck delivery information.
Revisions to the site plan or other project‐related information available to WJVA at the time the analysis was prepared may require a reevaluation of the findings and/or recommendations of the report. The project site plan is provided as Figure 1.
Appendix A provides definitions of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A‐weighted sound pressure levels in decibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighted sound levels, as they correlate well with public reaction to noise. Appendix B provides typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources.
21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 3
CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE NOISE EXPOSURE
The CEQA Guidelines and recent case law apply the following questions for the assessment of significant noise impacts for a project:
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
d. Would the project result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in noise levels above levels existing without the project? King City General Plan
The Noise Element of the King City General Plan (adopted November, 1998) establishes noise level compatibility standards in terms of the Day/Night Average Noise Level (Ldn). The Ldn represents the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The Ldn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions. Table I provides the General Plan noise level standards for land use compatibility.
Outdoor activity areas include backyards of single‐family residences, individual patios or decks of multi‐family developments and common outdoor recreation areas of multi‐family developments.
The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation.
21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 4
TABLE I
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE – LAND USE COMPATABILITY STANDARDS
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
dBA
Generalized Land Use Exterior Ldn Range General Land Use Recommendation1 Residential and Institutional Less than 65 dBA
Greater than 65 dBA
A
B
Commercial and Industrial Less than 75 dBA
Greater than 75 dBA
A
B
Park and Open Space Less than 65 dBA
Greater than 65 dBA
A
C
1 Recommendation:
A‐New construction or development will be subject to no adverse noise impacts, and will require no special noise attenuation features.
B‐New construction or development should be undertaken only after an analysis or noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise attenuation features included in the design.
C‐ New building construction involving concentrations of people (spectator sports and some recreational facilities) should generally be avoided unless an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise attenuation features included in the design.
Source: King City General Plan
King City Municipal Code
Additionally, section 17.56.030 (Noise) of the King Municipal Code (Noise Ordinance) provides additional noise level standards that apply within the City. The municipal code provides maximum allowable noise levels at the property line of various land use designations.
TABLE II
MAXIMUM PERMITTED NOISE LEVEL AT LOT LINE
KING CITY MUNICIPAL CODE
dBA
Land Use Type Maximum Permitted Noise Level, dBA
Residential 55
Commercial 65
Industrial 68
Source: King City Municipal Code
The King City municipal code states that if the noise is not smooth and continuous and is not radiated between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m., the following corrections apply to the noise level standards provided in Table II:
21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 5
(1) Daytime operation only Plus 5
(2) Noise source operate less than:
(A) 20% of any one‐hour period Plus 5
(B) 5% of any one‐hour period (apply one of these corrections only) Plus 10 (3) Noise of impulsive character such as hammering Minus 5 (4) Noise of periodic character such as hammering or screeching Minus 5 Substantial Noise Increases
CEQA does not define what constitutes a substantial increase in noise levels. Some guidance is provided by the 1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which assessed changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The FICON recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft and traffic noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. The rationale for the FICON recommendations is that it is possible to consistently describe the annoyance of people exposed to transportation noise in terms of the DNL (or CNEL). Annoyance is a summary measure of the general adverse reaction of people to noise that results in speech interference, sleep disturbance, or interference with other daily activities.
Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to address aircraft noise impacts, they are used in this analysis for all transportation noise sources that are described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the DNL or CNEL. Table III summarizes the FICON recommendations.
TABLE III
MEASURES OF
SUBSTANTIAL NOISE INCREASE FOR TRANSPORTATION SOURCES
Ambient Noise Level Without Project
(DNL/CNEL)
Significant Impact Assumed to Occur if the
Project Increases Ambient Noise Levels By:
<60 dB + 5 dB or more
60‐65 dB +3 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
Source: FICON, 1992, as applied by WJV Acoustics, Inc.
For noise sources that are not transportation related, which usually includes commercial or industrial activities and other stationary noise sources, it is common to assume that a 3‐5 dB increase in noise levels represents a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. This is based on laboratory tests that indicate that a 3 dB increase is the minimum change perceptible to most people, and a 5 dB increase is perceived as a “definitely noticeable change.” 21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 6
Construction Noise and Vibration
The King City General Plan Noise Element provides some guidance in regards to construction noise. The Noise Element provides the following guidelines in respect to the reduction of construction‐related noise levels within the community. Replacing individual operations and techniques with less noisy ones, e.g., using welding instead of riveting, mixing concrete off‐site instead of on‐site, and employing prefabricated structures instead of assembling them on‐site Selecting the quietest of alternate items of equipment, e.g., electric instead of diesel‐ powered equipment, hydraulic tools instead of pneumatic impact tools. Scheduling of equipment operations to keep average levels low, to have noisiest operations coincide with times of the highest ambient levels, and to keep noise levels relatively uniform in time; also, turning off idling equipment. Keeping noise equipment as far as possible from site boundaries. Providing enclosures for stationary items of equipment and barriers around particularly noise areas on the site or around the entire site.
Additional guidance can be provided by section 14‐8.02A of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications document which suggests that construction equipment should not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from job site activities from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m.
There are no state or federal standards that specifically address construction vibration. Some guidance is provided by the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. The Manual provides guidance for determining annoyance potential criteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table IV and Table V, and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec).
TABLE IV
GUIDELINE VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA
Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: Caltrans
21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 7
TABLE V
GUIDELINE VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile, historic buildings, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Caltrans
21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 8
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The project site is currently an undeveloped lot, located at 1023 Broadway Street, in King City, California. The project site is adjacent to existing retail/commercial land uses to the north, an undeveloped lot to the south, retail land uses to the west and the King City Cemetery is located northwest of the project site, across Broadway Street. Additionally, residential land uses (King City MH & RV Park) are located approximately 350 feet northeast of the project site, along Franciscan Way.
The existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic associated with vehicles traveling on US 101, Broadway Street and Franciscan Way. Additional sources of noise observed during the site inspection included landscaping activities, occasional aircraft overflights, commercial/industrial activities, birds, barking dogs and noise associated with human activity at nearby residential land uses.
WJVA staff conducted background (ambient) noise level measurements near the project site on October 6, 2021. The measurement sites were located in the direction and vicinity of the closest off‐site residential land uses. Long‐term ambient noise measurements were conducted continuously for a period of 24 hours using an automated sound level meter at one (1) monitoring location (LT‐1). Additionally, WJVA staff conducted short‐term (15‐minute) noise level measurements at four (4) ambient noise monitoring locations (ST‐1 through ST‐4). The locations of the ambient noise measurement sites are provided as Figure 2.
Noise monitoring equipment utilized for the measurements consisted of Larson‐Davis Laboratories Model LDL‐820 sound level analyzers equipped with a B&K Type 4176 1/2” microphones. The equipment complies with the specifications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (Precision) sound level meters. The meters were calibrated in the field prior to use with a B&K Type 4230 acoustic calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The microphones were located on a tripod at 5 feet above the ground.
Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐1 ranged from a low of 44.8 dB between 11:00 9.m. and midnight to a high of 60.3 dB between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐1 ranged from 57.5 dB to 92.9 dB. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from 38.3 to 51.3 dB. The L90 is a statistical descriptor that defines the noise level exceeded 90% of the time during each hour of the sample period. The L90 is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sources. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐1 during the 24‐hour noise measurement period was 57.5 dB Ldn. Figure 3 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at the LT‐1 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.
The short‐term noise measurement site data included energy average (Leq) maximum (Lmax) as 21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 9
well as five (5) individual statistical parameters. Observations were made of the dominant noise sources affecting the measurements. The statistical parameters describe the percent of time a noise level was exceeded during the measurement period. Table VI summarizes short‐term noise measurement results.
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
GROCERY OUTLET STORE
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 6, 2021
Site Time A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA Sources
Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
ST‐1 8:15 a.m. 62.4 79.4 71.0 67.4 62.1 54.4 51.0 TR, AC ST‐1 3:55 p.m. 61.8 78.1 70.2 66.7 60.7 53.1 49.2 TR, AC, ST‐2 8:35 a.m. 60.9 74.2 66.6 63.1 61.4 57.2 48.1 TR, B, C ST‐2 4:15 p.m. 62.7 73.3 67.5 67.2 63.3 59.3 49.7 TR, AC ST‐3 8:55 a.m. 63.0 74.1 73.0 66.2 62.4 58.0 51.1 TR, C, L ST‐3 4:35 p.m. 62.5 75.8 73.0 65.4 61.8 57.1 49.5 TR, B, V ST‐4 9:15 a.m. 57.4 70.1 61.4 60.3 58.2 55.4 52.9 TR, B, AC ST‐4 4:55 p.m. 56.0 66.2 60.9 59.3 57.2 54.8 50.8 TR, V TR: Traffic AC: Aircraft V: Voices B: Birds R: L: Landscaping Activities C: Construction Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
Short‐term noise measurements were conducted for 15‐minute periods. Sites ST‐1, ST‐2 and ST‐ 3 were located adjacent to the closest residential land uses (sensitive receptors) to the proposed project site. Site ST‐4 was located in the vicinity of existing retail land uses (Denny’s Restaurant and Valero Gas Station and convenience store) adjacent to the project site. 21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 10
PROJECT RELATED NOISE LEVELS
The proposed project includes a 30‐foot single‐story, 18,187 square foot Grocery Outlet store with 72 parking spaces and 13,908 square feet of landscaping. The proposed project would be similar to a typical grocery store in California. It would not include any type of food preparation on site. Semi‐trailer deliveries would occur twice per week at the loading dock. These truck deliveries would be scheduled for early morning prior to the opening of the store. There would also be four to five smaller trucks delivering bread, beverages, etc. that also deliver products to the store each day. The proposed project would operate seven days a week between the hours of 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
Project‐Related Increases in Traffic Noise Exposure
WJVA utilized the FHWA Traffic Noise Model to quantify expected project‐related increases in traffic noise exposure along roadways in the project vicinity. Traffic noise exposure for Existing vs. Existing Plus Project and Cumulative No Project vs. Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions was calculated based upon the FHWA Model, traffic volumes provided by KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. The day/night distribution of traffic and the percentages of trucks on the roadways used for modeling were estimated based upon previous studies WJVA has conducted along similar roadways, as this data was not available from governmental sources. The Noise modeling assumptions used to calculate project traffic noise are provided as Appendix C. Table VII provides a comparison of Existing and Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels at a reference distance of 75 feet from the center of the analyzed roadways (typical residential setback).
TABLE VII
EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
GROCERY OUTLET STORE, KING CITY
Roadway Name (segment description)
Ldn, dB1
Change Significant
No Project Impact? With
Project
Broadway Street (w/o project site) 58 58 <1 No
Broadway Street (e/o project site) 58 58 <1 No
Franciscan Way (s/o Broadway Street) 53 53 <1 No
Broadway Street (e/o Franciscan Way) 58 58 <1 No
Broadway Street (e/o Canal Street) 60 60 <1 No
Broadway Street (w/o Canal Street) 59 59 <1 No
Canal Street (s/o Broadway Street) 55 55 <1 No
Broadway Street (w/o Mildred Street) 59 59 <1 No
Mildred Street (n/o Broadway Street) 55 55 <1 No
Mildred Street (s/o Broadway Street) 51 51 <1 No 1
At a typical residential setback (assumed to be 75 feet from the center of the roadway) Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 11
From Table VII it can be determined that traffic noise exposure at existing land uses in the project vicinity would be expected to increase by less than 1 dB as a result of the project when project related traffic is added to Existing traffic volumes. Noise levels provided in Table VII (and below in Table VIII) have been rounded to the nearest whole digit.
Table VIII provides a comparison of Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project traffic noise levels at a reference distance of 75 feet from the center of the analyzed roadways (typical residential setback).
TABLE VIII
CUMULATIVE AND CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
GROCERY OUTLET STORE, KING CITY
Roadway Name (segment description)
Ldn, dB1
Change Significant
No Project Impact? With
Project
Broadway Street (w/o project site) 59 59 <1 No
Broadway Street (e/o project site) 59 60 <1 No
Franciscan Way (s/o Broadway Street) 54 54 <1 No
Broadway Street (e/o Franciscan Way) 59 60 <1 No
Broadway Street (e/o Canal Street) 61 61 <1 No
Broadway Street (w/o Canal Street) 60 60 <1 No
Canal Street (s/o Broadway Street) 56 56 <1 No
Broadway Street (w/o Mildred Street) 61 61 <1 No
Mildred Street (n/o Broadway Street) 56 56 <1 No
Mildred Street (s/o Broadway Street) 52 52 <1 No 1
At a typical residential setback (assumed to be 75 feet from the center of the roadway) Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
From Table VIII it can be determined that traffic noise exposure at existing land uses in the project vicinity would be expected to increase by less than 1 dB as a result of the project when project related traffic is added to Cumulative traffic volumes. It should be noted, the apparent increase of 1 dB along Broadway Street (east of project site) and Broadway Street (east of Franciscan Way) is the result of rounding. The actual calculated increases for these two roadway segments are 0.4 dB and 0.1 dB, respectively. Therefore, project‐related increases in traffic noise would result in an increase of less than 1 dB along all analyzed roadway segments.
Generally speaking, project‐related increases in traffic noise exposure was calculated to be in the range of 0.0 to 0.4 dB at all analyzed roadway segments. The project would not result in noise levels at any sensitive receptor locations to exceed any King City noise level standards nor result in a substantial increase over existing (without project) ambient noise levels. 21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 12
Slowly Moving Trucks
According to the project applicant, semi‐trailer deliveries would occur twice per week at the loading dock. These truck deliveries would be scheduled for early morning prior to the opening of the store. There would also be four to five smaller trucks delivering bread, beverages, etc. that also deliver products to the store each day.
According to the project applicant, the delivery trucks will enter the property from the easterly driveway on Broadway, circle around to the back of the store and back into the loading dock.
Trucks will egress around the westerly side of the store and exit onto Broadway using the westerly driveway.
WJVA has conducted measurements of the noise levels produced by slowly moving trucks for a number of studies. Such truck movements would be expected to produce noise levels in the range of 71‐77 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The range in measured truck noise levels is due to differences in the size of trucks, their speed of movement and whether they have refrigeration units in operation during the pass‐by. On‐site truck movements could occur as close as 360 feet from the closest noise sensitive receptors (residential land uses at King City MH & RV Park). At this distance, noise levels associated with on‐site truck movements would be approximately 54‐ 60 dB at the closest sensitive receptor locations.
There is an existing 6‐foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall around the King City MH & RV Park, located along Franciscan Way, which provides acoustical shielding from noise levels outside the residential area. Additionally, there are intervening buildings (existing commercial/retail buildings) between the project site and the residential land uses that would provide acoustical shielding from on‐site noise sources, at the residential land uses to the north. Noise levels associated with truck movements would not exceed any King City noise standards at nearby sensitive receptor locations. It should be noted, reference to noise levels measured at LT‐1 as well as ST‐1, ST‐2 and ST‐3 indicate that ambient noise levels measured in the vicinity of the residential land uses north of the site already exceed the applicable King City noise level standards, and noise levels associated with truck movements would not exceed existing ambient noise levels and would generally not be audible at the residential land uses.
Loading Docks
The loading dock behind the Grocery Outlet store would be located approximately 400 feet from the residential property line to the north of the project site. Additionally, the loading dock is oriented such that the store building would provide acoustic shielding to the residential land uses north of the project site.
Noise sources typically associated with loading dock activities include truck engines, the operation of truck‐mounted refrigeration units, fork lifts, the banging of hand carts and roll‐up doors, noise from P.A. systems, and the voices of truck drivers and store employees. Truck engines and/or refrigeration units are typically turned off while trucks are in loading dock areas to reduce noise and save energy.
21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 13
Based upon noise level measurements conducted by WJVA for other studies, loading dock noise levels would be expected to be in the range of 46 to 64 dBA at a distance of 400 feet. Taking into account the acoustical shielding provided by the building and the existing CMU block wall, maximum noise levels associated with loading dock activities would be in the range of approximately 36 to 54 dB. Such levels would not exceed any applicable King City noise level standards nor would they exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels measured at the noise measurement sites near the residential land uses.
Mechanical Equipment
It is assumed that the project would include roof‐mounted HVAC units on the proposed buildings.
The heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) requirements for the buildings would likely require the use of multiple packaged roof‐top units. For the purpose of noise and aesthetics, roof‐mounted HVAC units are typically shielded by means of a roof parapet. WJVA has conducted reference noise level measurements at numerous commercial and retail buildings with roof‐ mounted HVAC units, and associated noise levels typically range between approximately 45 to 50 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the building façade.
For this project, the closest residential property lines to any potential roof‐mounted HVAC equipment would be located at a minimum setback distance of 400 feet. Taking into account the standard rate of noise attenuation with increased distance from a point source (‐6 dB/doubling of distance), noise levels associated with the operation of roof‐mounted HVAC units would be approximately 27 to 32 dB at the closest sensitive receptor property line. Such levels do not exceed any King City noise level standard or exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels.
Parking Lot Activities
Noise due to traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and is not usually considered to be significant. Human activity in parking lots that can produce noise includes voices, stereo systems and the opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. Such activities can occur at any time. The noise levels associated with these activities cannot be precisely defined due to variables such as the number of parking movements, time of day and other factors. It is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a maximum noise level of 60 to 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which is comparable to the level of a raised voice.
For this project, parking would be dispersed throughout the overall project area. The closest proposed parking areas would be located at least 350 feet from the closest existing residential property lines to the north. At his distance, maximum (Lmax) parking lot vehicle movements would be expected to be approximately 43 to 48 dB. Such levels would not exceed any of the City’s applicable noise levels standards or exceed existing ambient noise levels at the closest residential land uses.
21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 14
Construction Noise
Construction noise would occur at various locations within the project site through the buildout period. Existing sensitive receptors could be located as close as 350 feet from construction activities. Table IX provides typical construction‐related noise levels at distances of 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet.
Construction noise is not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to daytime hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. King City does not specifically provide limits on hours of construction; however, it is common practice to limit hours of construction to occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (or other specific time limitations) when construction is to occur near sensitive receptor locations. Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents if nighttime operations were to occur or if equipment is not properly muffled or maintained.
TABLE IX
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS, dBA
Type of Equipment 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 300 Ft. 350 Ft.
Concrete Saw 84 78 74 73
Crane 75 69 65 64
Excavator 75 69 65 64
Front End Loader 73 67 63 62
Jackhammer 83 77 73 72
Paver 71 65 61 60
Pneumatic Tools 79 73 69 68
Dozer 76 70 66 65
Rollers 74 68 64 63
Trucks 80 72 70 69
Pumps 74 68 64 63
Scrapers 81 75 71 70
Portable Generators 74 68 64 63
Backhoe 80 74 70 69
Grader 80 74 70 69
Source: FHWA
Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987 Vibration
The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling. The project would include the demolition of the existing driveway facing Broadway Street. However, this is considered to be minor in nature. Typical vibration levels at distances of 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by 21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 15
Table X. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage, as provided above in Table IV and Table V.
TABLE X
TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION
PPV (in/sec)
Equipment @ 100´ @ 300´
Bulldozer (Large) 0.011 0.006
Bulldozer (Small) 0.0004 0.00019
Loaded Truck 0.01 0.005
Jackhammer 0.005 0.002
Vibratory Roller .03 0.013
Caisson Drilling .01 0.006
Source: Caltrans
After full project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities will result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Activities involved in trash bin collection could result in minor on‐site vibrations as the bin is placed back onto the ground. Such vibrations would not be expected to be felt at the closest off‐site sensitive uses. 21‐53 (Grocery Outlet Store, King City) 10‐20‐21 16
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed Grocery Outlet store, to be located at 1023 Broadway Street in King City, would not be expected to produce noise levels that would exceed any applicable King City noise level standards at any nearby sensitive receptor locations. Additionally, noise levels associated with the construction and operation of the proposed store would not be expected to result in any significant increases over existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations.
The foregoing conclusions and recommendations are based upon the best information known to WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA) at the time the study was prepared concerning the proposed site plan, proposed activities and the noise levels that could be produced at the project site. Any significant changes to the information used for this analysis will require a reevaluation of the findings of this report. Additionally, any significant future changes in noise regulations or other factors beyond WJVA’s control may result in long‐term noise results different from those described by this analysis.