Agenda packet — Livermore City Council, May 22, 2023 (part 5 of 7)

We are submitting this letter in support of the proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn. We believe it will attract agri-tourists and enhance the reputation of the South Livermore Valley. It meets the intent of both the SLVAP and SLVSP.

David Epstein Lori Souza
Executive Director Chair of TVC Board
ATTACHMENT 6
747
From: Michele Donley
To: Sukhamrit Purewal
Subject: Fwd: 50 Foot Setback on Arroyo and Hansen (addendum) Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 5:03:19 PM
Attachments: IMG_8268.pdf
IMG_8282.PNG
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Paul Mansfield >
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 4:54:07 PM
To: Planning Web email <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 50 Foot Setback on Arroyo and Hansen (addendum) Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

My original email somehow failed to include this document. Please include it as part of my letter.

Thank you.

Paul Mansfield
On Apr 27, 2023, at 4:48 PM, Paul Mansfield wrote:

Dear Planning Commission,
Los Olivos residents were sent a “blue card” from the city, notifying us of an upcoming public hearing (5/2/23) on the Livermore Wine Country Inn.

At issue, among other things, is changing the 100 foot set back to a 50 foot setback… Effectively allowing buildings to be closer to the street.

My inclination is to be against developing that corner, regardless of whether the setback is 100 feet or the now-proposed 50 feet.
(But 50 feet is of course much worse.)
It would be a shame to visually pollute that corner.

It would be a real loss to the public, and it is hard to see how the city that prides itself on a Scenic Corridor on 580 would allow this vista to be diminished forever.

Why is this allowance being proposed, and what specific benefit does it bring? The tax revenue it brings will be insignificant compared to the loss of beauty and public enjoyment for walkers and bikers.

ATTACHMENT 6
748
Likewise, the noise, traffic, litter and parking woes brought by this project to our neighborhood are easy to foresee, and they will be significant.

I’ve seen little in the specifics of the proposed project to help me feel like it would somehow seamlessly blend in.

I also have concerns that the current developer has plans for the property that are not fully understood by the community.

See the link for an early 2022 archive capture that was on the “Lodging Broker’s Network” website, or see the screen shot below.

The Broker Network listed the Livermore Wine Country Inn as being For Sale.

The Price? $3,475,000…. for what appears to be the empty lot only.

Is this why we are being asked to change the setback? You cannot fault me for wondering. https://web.archive.org/web/20220209203607/https://www.lodgingbrokersnetwork.com/ The ad certainly seems at odds with the developer’s narrative of desiring to build and settle into the business herself.

Perhaps the Planning Commission has insight on these conflicting narratives, and can explain why the public’s enjoyment
of these vistas should be diminished for the immense benefit of just a few.

And finally, I have very real concerns about what might happen if the business fails.

Economic times are changing and uncertain for the hospitality industry.

The project is in a very high profile location. It’s not tucked away in some alcove off of Marina Ave.

If it fails, what mechanisms are in place to ensure this site is well kept? Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Paul Mansfield
Livermore
ATTACHMENT 6
749
ATTACHMENT 6
750
ATTACHMENT 6
751
April 20, 2023
City of Livermore - Community Development Department
Attn: Planning Commission
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: Letter of Support for Proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn To Whom it May Concern:

Sincerely,
Brandi Lombardi
Executive Director
Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association
3585 Greenville Road, Ste. 4 | Livermore, CA | 925.447.9463 | [email protected] ATTACHMENT 6
752
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Brandon Cardwell
To: Sukhamrit Purewal
Subject: FW: Wine country Inn
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:31:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: rhonda woodfamilyvineyards.com <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 8:48 AM
To: Brandon Cardwell <[email protected]>
Subject: Wine country Inn
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I am in support of the Wine Country Inn and its fulfillment of the South Valley Plan. Please vote for its approval.

Thank you,
Rhonda Wood
Owner
Wood Family Vineyards
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 6
753
April 28, 2023
City of Livermore - Community Development Department
Attn: Planning Commission
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: Letter of Support for Proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn To Whom it May Concern:

ATTACHMENT 6
754
d. Michelle has been very thorough in her proposal thus far to seek out and consider community concerns.

Sincerely,
Heidi Rasmussen
Director of Sales and Hospitality
Concannon Vineyard
ATTACHMENT 6
755
April 28, 2023
City of Livermore - Community Development Department
Attn: Planning Commission
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: Letter of Support for Proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn To Whom It May Concern:

We write this letter to support the proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn project being developed by Livermore resident Michelle Boss.

Folks are writing letters telling you that this project meets the criteria in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and that we desperately need amenities of this variety to help propel the south valley into an economically sustaining entity. And while all this is true, I ask that you consider our local wine country as a technology hub. We rarely or ever have conversations regarding wine country as an innovation hub. Most will only see this proposed project as a B&B.

Still, I see this as an opportunity for wine country to gain another asset that supports hospitality and wine-related innovation. The Lawrence Livermore Labs is a behemoth of an operation with some of the rarest forms of technology within its gates, and more importantly, it houses some of the most brilliant minds in the world. We have one of the biggest technology hubs in California that draw some of the most influential people within their respective sectors. Both of these examples are supported by an infrastructure and a regional awareness that promotes their technologies on a global scale.

Wine country is in dire need of this same attention, awareness, and drive. I implore you to see this proposed plan as an added asset serving the bigger wine country picture relative to regional maturity and economic sustainability. A wine country boutique hotel, the growth of our downtown, sewer and water extensions down Tesla, the idea of extending our UGB east of Greenville to preserve and promote viticulture, the organic success story of the Vasco Row businesses, and items like this proposed B&B all serve to add value to our 140-year-old technology hub. As a wine country, we need more infrastructure and tools to attract innovation leaders into our region. Please see this proposal as more than just a building on a hill near wealthy neighborhoods. But as an extension and an example of our commitment to seeing South Livermore remains beautiful and forever thriving.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Troupe-Masi
Resident | Small Business Owner | Regional Ambassador
Vice Chair GPAC - City Of Livermore
ATTACHMENT 6
756

DARCIE KENT VINEYARDS LLC
7000 Tesla Road Livermore, CA 94550 • TEL (925) 243-9039 • FAX (209) 294-4004 April 28, 2023
City of Livermore - Community Development Department
Attn: Planning Commission
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: Letter of Support for Proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn To Whom it May Concern:

We write this letter in support of the proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn project being developed by Livermore resident Michelle Boss for the following primary reasons:
a. The project proposed meets all criteria in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for this parcel, and what we have planned and depended upon for almost three decades. It will provide lodging for visitors, meeting space for businesses, and another restaurant for our residents and wine country visitors. b. We are in dire need of exceptional boutique lodging experiences, such as this one proposed, to gain international recognition as a wine region, and to help boost our local winegrowers and the Agritourism economy. Wine country visitors rely on a variety of lodging options - from B&Bs, to quaint 30-room inns, boutique downtown hotels and rural wine country resort & spas - to meet their expectations for an ideal overnight or multi-day visit.
c. Livermore Valley Wine Community has long been known as a world-class wine region but has faced challenges in getting connoisseurs and luxury consumers to our region due to the absence of adequate wine country lodging. This boutique hotel will go a long way in securing those visits and presenting this region as a world-class luxury wine destination. It is well established that overnight visitors to a wine region spend on average five times as much as day-trippers.
d. Michelle has been very thorough in her proposal thus far to seek out and consider community concerns. The plans for this inn predate the construction of the adjacent neighborhood and were thoroughly disclosed to all homeowners prior to their home purchases.

Sincerely,
David B. Kent
Chief Executive Officer
Darcie Kent Vineyards
ATTACHMENT 6
757
From: Brandon Cardwell
To: Sukhamrit Purewal
Subject: FW: Wine country Inn
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:42:37 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Darcie Kent <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:38 AM
To: Brandon Cardwell <[email protected]>
Subject: Wine country Inn
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

April 20, 2023
City of Livermore - Community Development Department
Attn: Planning Commission
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: Letter of Support for Proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn To Whom it May Concern:

We write this letter in support of the proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn project being developed by Livermore resident Michelle Boss for the following primary reasons:

ATTACHMENT 6
758
a. It appears that the project proposed meets all criteria in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for this parcel, and what we have wanted here for almost two decades. It will provide lodging for visitors, meeting space for businesses, and another restaurant for our residents.
b. We are in dire need of exceptional boutique lodging experiences, such as this one proposed, to gain international recognition as a wine region, and to help boost our local winegrowers and greater economy.
c. Livermore Valley Wine Community has long been known as a world-class wine region but has faced challenges in getting connoisseurs and luxury consumers to our region due to the absence of adequate wine country lodging. This boutique hotel will go a long way in securing those visits and presenting this region as a world-class luxury wine destination.
d. Michelle has been very thorough in her proposal thus far to seek out and consider community concerns.

Sincerely,
Darcie Kent
Almost Famous Wine Company
2271 Vasco Rd, Suite D
Livermore, CA 94550
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 6
759
ATTACHMENT 6
760
April 28, 2023
City of Livermore - Community Development Department
Attn: Planning Commission
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: Letter of Support for Proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn To Whom it May Concern:

We (Wente Family Estates) write this letter in support of the proposed Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn project being developed by Livermore resident Michelle Boss for the following primary reasons:
a. This project’s specifications have been part of our long-term planning for a viable South Livermore plan. We have supported the implementation and development of this plan since inception.
b. We have heard directly from wine business trade and media that for the Livermore Valley Wine Country to be recognized as ‘serious’ wine valley, we need more overnight lodging and wine country ‘beds’ to become a true destination. We will not receive the coverage or advertising that we deserve until media knows that consumers/tourists will be able to complete their visit with a wine country hotel accommodation. This boutique hotel is exactly what our valley needs to be recognized.
c. Michelle and her team have worked diligently to provide thorough and thoughtful plans and represent this community.

Sincerely,
Aly Wente & the Wente Family
Vice President, Marketing & Customer Experience
5th Generation Winegrower, Wente Family Estates
Livermore Resident
ATTACHMENT 6
761
ATTACHMENT 6
762
From: Yvonne Lysakowski
To: Planning Web email; Planning Web email
Subject: 5D#1 and 5D#2
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:26:52 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

To Livermore Planning Department:

I am a Livermore resident and strongly disagree with the Proposal to amend the SLVSP to allow a 50’ setback area from Hansen Road for commercial sites 5D#1 and 5D#2. The SLVSP specifies a 100' setback to maintain the rural vineyard environment that South Livermore visitors and residents currently enjoy.

The 100' setback is an essential component of the SLVSP that the city planning commission can not ignore solely for commercial development. The applicant for the wine country inn (M. Boss) can change the wine country inn plans to be in compliance, rather than expect the SLVSP to be amended to accommodate an overly large inn and large caretaker (personal) residence. The Planning Commission needs to show respect for the SLVSP and keep a long term vision in mind for Livermore.

Sincerely,
Yvonne Lysakowski
39 ATTACHMENT 6
763
From: David Richter
To: Planning Web email
Subject: 5D#1 and 5D#2
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:47:16 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

To Livermore Planning Department:

I am a Livermore residents and I strongly disagree with the Proposal to amend the SLVSP to allow a 50’ setback area from Hansen Road for commercial sites 5D#1 and 5D#2. The SLVSP specifies a 100' setback to maintain the rural vineyard environment that South Livermore visitors and residents currently enjoy.

The 100' setback is an essential component of the SLVSP that the city planning commission can not ignore solely for commercial development.

The applicant for the wine country inn (M. Boss) can change the wine country inn plans to be in compliance, rather than expect the SLVSP to be amended to accommodate an overly large inn and large caretaker (personal) residence. The Planning commission needs to show respect for the SLVSP and keep a long term vision in mind for Livermore.

Sincerely,
David Richter
Sent from Mail for Windows
40 ATTACHMENT 6
764
41 ATTACHMENT 6
765
42 ATTACHMENT 6
766
43 ATTACHMENT 6
767
44 ATTACHMENT 6
768
From: Helen Paul
To: Planning Web email
Subject: No to SLVSP amendment and no to Wine Country Inn Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 10:44:30 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed amendment to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) and the reapproval of the Livermore Wine Country Inn (Agenda Item 5.1 of the Planning Commission meeting on May 2, 2023).

Now, the City of Livermore is proposing to amend the SLVSP to replace 100 feet of vineyard with a parking lot and a large trash dumpster. It is totally against the intent of the SLVSP to introduce new development within the agricultural setting, thereby reducing the visual impacts on the rural character of the Valley.

The amendment change would reduce the 100 ft required vine plantings to 50 ft to allow for paved parking, a commercial-sized dumpster, and 20ft of the Inn as currently designed.

The SLVSP was the product of many years of effort, yet the City proposes to make significant changes in a single meeting. The changes are being made because the developer has proposed a building that is too large given the restrictions of the SLVSP.

Vote NO on the amendment and the approval of the hotel. 2 ATTACHMENT 6
769
From: paul victor
To: Planning Web email
Subject: No to SLVSP amendment and no to Wine Country Inn Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 11:12:52 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from .com. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The amendment change would reduce the 100 ft required vine plantings to 50 ft to allow for paved parking, a commercial-sized dumpster, and 20ft of the Inn as currently designed.

Vote NO on the amendment and the approval of the hotel.

Paul Victor
3 ATTACHMENT 6
770
From: Mary Anne Victor
To: Planning Web email
Subject: No to SLVSP amendment and no to Wine Country Inn Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 11:14:33 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The amendment change would reduce the 100 ft required vine plantings to 50 ft to allow for paved parking, a commercial-sized dumpster, and 20ft of the Inn as currently designed.

Vote NO on the amendment and the approval of the hotel.

Mary Anne Victor
4 ATTACHMENT 6
771
From: Karen E
To: Planning Web email
Subject: No to SLVSP amendment and no to Wine Country Inn Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 11:50:06 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The amendment change would reduce the 100 ft required vine plantings to 50 ft to allow for paved parking, a commercial-sized dumpster, and 20ft of the Inn as currently designed.

Vote NO on the amendment and the approval of the hotel.

Best,
Karen Engler
5 ATTACHMENT 6
772
From: Louise Victor
To: Planning Web email
Subject: No to SLVSP amendment and no to Wine Country Inn Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 2:29:27 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The amendment change would reduce the 100 ft required vine plantings to 50 ft to allow for paved parking, a commercial-sized dumpster, and 20ft of the Inn as currently designed.

Vote NO on the amendment and the approval of the hotel.

Sincerely,
Louise Victor
6 ATTACHMENT 6
773
7 ATTACHMENT 6
774
Appeals, and to review the new documents and drawings for the application as well as the new CEQA documentation.

Please confirm by email that you have received this request.

Sincerely,
Donna Cabanne
8 ATTACHMENT 6
775
From:

To:

Cc:

Yolanda Fintschenko
Kimberly Cilley
Steve Stewart: Michele Donley
Subject: Fwd: Defamatory comments in letter from Ms. Boss -- Planning Packet for May 2, 2023 hearing /item 5.1 Attachment 17
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 2:24:33 PM
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: BERNARD CABANNE
1 2023 at 2: 17:25 P
>
NNE
Subject: Fwd: Defamatory comments in letter from Ms. Boss --- Planning Packet for May 2, 2023 hearing /item 5.1 Attachment 17
May 1st, 2023
Dear Planning Commissioners:

Please address the defamatory comments made in the letter submitted by Ms. Boss (Attachment 17),included in the Planning Commission packet, Item 5.1,for the May 2, 2023 hearing. This letter was included in your packet and posted on the city website. In the letter, Ms. Boss falsely accuses four of us by name of vandalizing her hotel signage multiple times. These accusations are unfounded and false. Making false accusations is not constructive to a fair outcome.

We had and still have major concerns about the project as it was configured in 2019. Those concerns centered around safety, consistency with the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and the project's impacts to our families and neighborhoods. Those unaddressed concerns were the 9 ATTACHMENT 6
776
driving force to exercise our right to bring this matter to the courts . We prevailed in the courts with the Court of Appeals decision December 2022 which ruled the planted 100ft. setback was "fundamental, clear, mandatory and not open to discretionary interpretation" by the City Council.

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission ask Ms. Boss at the May 2 public hearing to retract the last two paragraphs on the bottom of page 4 ( Attachment 17) and paragraphs 1-5 on page 5 (Attachment 17), and that she also be admonished to refrain from any further scurrilous attacks on us individually or on the Friends of South Livermore in the future.

Please confirm by email that you have received this request.

Sincerely,
Friends of South Livermore
10 ATTACHMENT 6
777
11 ATTACHMENT 6
778
12 ATTACHMENT 6
779
From: Robert Paul
To: Planning Web email
Subject: No to SLVSP amendment and no to Wine Country Inn Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:36:22 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The amendment change would reduce the 100 ft required vine plantings to 50 ft to allow for paved parking, a commercial-sized dumpster, and 20ft of the Inn as currently designed.

Vote NO on the amendment and the approval of the hotel. 13 ATTACHMENT 6
780
Dear City of Livermore Planning Commission, May 1, 2023 First let me say, welcome to the Planning Commission, to the new members: Jacob Anderson, Tracy Kronzak, and Yolanda Fintschenko. You now join fellow commissioners Steven Dunbar and Daniel Leary to complete the five-member advisory committee.

Please know that you are doing a great service to the City of Livermore. Many times, you will be making decisions on issues that will leave a lasting impression on our city for decades to come. In some instances, you will come across contentious issues and I know that you will do your best to guide the City Council, to make the best choices for our dear city. I have resided in Livermore just shy of 30 years by choice. I have watched this city flourish and I am proud to call Livermore home, as I, now, raise my own children here.

I am writing to you today to respectfully request that the Planning Committee allow more time before deciding to reduce the 100-foot setbacks to 50 feet for future development(s) in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) area. The Planning Commissioners and the public need more time to read, understand, and consider the 400-page SLVSP. By the date the Planning Committee meets to discuss the proposed changes to the SLVSP, the ‘Wine Country Inn’s’ new application and attachments / supporting documentation will only have been released for public viewing for four (4) days (two of which are weekend days) more time is needed to allow for thorough Planning Committee and public review as the documents were just released April 28 to the public. Not enough time has been allotted for the public to come prepared to discuss the topic at the Planning Committee meeting, dated May 2, 2023.

I would like it to be noted that I cordially object to the addendum proposed to the SLVSP, specifically, the Planning Committee proposing to change the SLVSP setback requirement of 100-foot to 50 feet for future development(s). Setbacks play a vital role as they ensure that buildings do not infringe on another person’s property rights to sunlight, ventilation, greenery, and vehicular access. Cutting the vine plantings in half would seriously degrade the visual resources of the area; we are trading vines for paved parking spaces and shrubs. More cars and shrubs are not the desired image needed to promote Livermore as a prime grape-growing and wine producing area. The SLVSP 100-foot setback rule was designed to preserve the area’s unique rural and picturesque qualities. As homeowners in the Los Olivos and The Corners communities we helped fund the SLVSP by paying tens of thousands of dollars in fees; and we did so willingly to live in this picturesque area and preserve and expand the vineyards.

The SLVSP has been in place for two decades and any builder who wants to construct on land within SLVSP must abide by its regulations. The East County Area Plan is governed by the South Livermore Valley Plan as the SLVSP supersedes any regulations pertaining to Livermore in the ECAP. Therefore, any changes made must not be taken 14 ATTACHMENT 6
781
lightly as other legal documents are dependent on the regulations outlined by the SLVSP.

The South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) has an extensive legislative history.

It was adopted in 1997 and amended in 2004 and has been the product of many years of effort. The SLVSP was developed with a thorough analysis of environmental conditions and extensive input from City decision makers, landowners, neighbors, and the community-at-large.

Please consider the fact that there may have been other potential builders who have walked away from this site knowing that the 100-foot setback, which has been in place for the last 20 years, created a hurdle or obstacle for their project, and therefore precluded them from building the Inn they had envisioned. If you were to change the SLVSP plan for the ‘Wine Country Inn’, then what would happen to those who potentially considered the site, but did not purchase the land, as it was not feasible to create the Inn they envisioned while abiding by the SLVSP? This is just not fair to them. If the addendum passes, then, this sets a new precedent. In future, citing precedent, a new landowner or developer may present an application and request that the Planning Committee change the SLVSP to accommodate their plan designs. It is a very slippery slope that is being created if the SLVSP is fundamentally changed after being in place for two decades.

Additionally, the current SLVSP 100-foot setback portion of the plan matches the setback requirement outlined in the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance for South Livermore Agricultural Zones. The Alameda County Zoning Ordinance currently states the setback requirements are “200 feet from a major street and 100 feet from any other street unless site-specific studies of noise, traffic, visual impacts or other land use compatibility factors convince the director of community development to approve a lessor setback through the site development review process…” (Alameda County Zoning Ordinance (Excerpts pertaining to South Livermore Valley - Chapter 17.06 A Districts- Section C.# 5). This would then need to be adjusted as well.

In order to make sure a drastic change to the SLVSP is not made arbitrarily, the Planning Committee should be aware there is a history of litigation that has taken place during the past few years pertaining to the building of the ‘Wine Country Inn’. The latest ruling was given by the Court of Appeals, District One, in which the judge ruled that the 100-foot setback requirement was clear, unambiguous and fundamental to the plan and the vision of South Livermore and the SLVSP.

If the City of Livermore Planning Commission decides to arbitrarily change the SLVSP and approves the 50 foot setback for the ‘Wine Country Inn’ and sends its recommendations to the City Council for approval, this creates a potential dilemma, since the Planning Commission is not only proposing to change the SLVSP, but is doing so in order to approve the ‘Wine Country Inn’ with the new setback of 50 feet not 100 feet as outlined in the current SLVSP. The committee must pay attention to the 15 ATTACHMENT 6
782
interrelatedness of decisions and long-range consequences. In approving the addendum at this time, the City of Livermore Planning Committee is creating a slippery slope, as other builders / landowners will want addendums made for their build site.

Please consider that by making a fundamental change to the SLVSP (as observed by the Court of Appeals, District One, judge) you are overhauling several years’ worth of planning and legislation that went into the formation of the SLVSP, that has stood on its own merit for the past two decades.

I am not against the ‘Wine Country Inn’, I am cordially objecting to the proposed addendum to change the current 100-foot setback requirement to 50 feet. I think that if the addendum is approved by the Planning Committee and goes on to win the approval of the City Council, it will do a great disservice to the neighborhood and South Livermore as it will create an eye sore that will potentially make property values in Los Olivos and The Corners decrease. No one wants to go home to the view of a parking lot. South Livermore is known for its beautiful, lush vineyards, replacing vines with asphalt and shrubs is not what the SLVSP had envisioned. I concur with the Court of Appeals, District One, judge, in their statement that the 100-foot setback requirement was clear, unambiguous, and fundamental to the plan and the vision of South Livermore and the SLVSP.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Cordially,
Sylvia Ramos-Hans & Steven Hans
16 ATTACHMENT 6
783
17 ATTACHMENT 6
784
18 ATTACHMENT 6
785
19 ATTACHMENT 6
786
ATTACHMENT 6
20 787
21 ATTACHMENT 6
788
22 ATTACHMENT 6
789
From: Nigel Hacker
To: Planning Web email
Subject: 5D#1 and 5D#2
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:32:21 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

To Livermore Planning Department:

We are Livermore residents and we strongly disagree with the Proposal to amend the SLVSP to allow a 50’ setback area from Hansen Road for commercial sites 5D#1 and 5D#2. The SLVSP specifies a 100' setback to maintain the rural vineyard environment that South Livermore visitors and residents currently enjoy.

The 100' setback is an essential component of the SLVSP that the city planning commission can not ignore solely for commercial development. The applicant for the wine country inn (M. Boss) can change the wine country inn plans to be in compliance, rather than expect the SLVSP to be amended to accommodate an overly large inn and large caretaker (personal) residence. The Planning commission needs to show respect for the SLVSP and keep a long term vision in mind for Livermore.

The 100' setback should be maintained for any proposed development and should never be amended
Sincerely,
Nigel Hacker
23 ATTACHMENT 6
790
From: Vicki Hackerv
To: Planning Web email
Subject: 5D#1 and 5D#2
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:16:58 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

To Livermore Planning Department:

The 100' setback is an essential component of the SLVSP that the city planning commission can not ignore solely for commercial development.

Sincerely,
Victoria Hacker
24 ATTACHMENT 6
791
From: S Lempke
To: Planning Web email
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:40:03 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The amendment change would reduce the 100 ft required vine plantings to 50 ft to allow for paved parking, a commercial-sized dumpster, and 20ft of the Inn as currently designed.

Vote NO on the amendment and the approval of the hotel
Suzanne Lempke
25 ATTACHMENT 6
792
From: Peter
To: Planning Web email
Subject: Comments on Planning Commission meeting 5/2, Item 5.1 Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 10:47:47 AM
Attachments: PC_Attachments.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Planning Commissioners:

RE: Agenda Item 5.1 Proposed Wine Country Inn
I begin by asking the Commissioners to address the defamatory comments made in the letter submitted by Ms. Boss (Attachment 17) that makes accusations that are unfounded and false.

False accusations are not conducive to a fair outcome.

We exercised our rights as citizens to contest the matter in the courts. We prevailed with the Court of Appeals decision in December 2022, which ruled the planted 100-foot setback from Hansen Road was “fundamental, clear, mandatory and not open to discretionary interpretation” by the City Council.

We respectfully request that the Planning Commission ask Ms. Boss to retract the last two paragraphs on the bottom of page 4, and paragraphs 1-5 on page 5 (Attachment 17), and that she also be admonished to refrain from any further scurrilous attacks on us individually or on the Friends of South Livermore in the future.

Returning to the hotel proposal, there are many problems with the Staff Report. The Staff Report does not mention that the hotel proposed in 2018 had overflow parking located in the 100-foot agricultural setback from Arroyo Road. The overflow parking was one of the issues cited by the Friends of South Livermore that was in conflict with the South Livermore Plan in its appeal to the City Council. The City Council subsequently prohibited the overflow parking in Condition B.24 – “The overflow parking shall be removed from the 100-foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road.” (Attachment 1)
In the current proposal, there is no request for overflow parking. In the Conditions for Approval (p. 654) is the section “Project Specific Conditions”, is stated (item #8): “Any vines 26 ATTACHMENT 6
793
in the 100-foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road that are removed during construction, must be replaced prior to an issuance of a certificate of occupancy.” (Attachment 2) The problem is the location of the vines is not specified. The landscaping plan shown on page 737 of the packet does not show six rows of vines but open space where the vines should be. The vines currently in place begin 30 feet from the trail, whereas the vines in the drawing begin less than 5 feet from the trail. The concern is that the owner will return later to place overflow parking in that area. The Condition should be modified to specify: “the vines shall be replanted in the same location. No overflow parking is allowed in the agricultural buffer.”
This also brings up the issue of the large (33-feet long X 29 feet wide) EVA turnout that extends into the agricultural buffer, in violation of the South Livermore Plan. This is another example where this project has been allowed to expand beyond the constraints imposed by the Plan.

Why was overflow parking requested when the City-specified parking space count of 65 was deemed “conservative” by the City engineers. A clue comes from her website (Attachment 5) which advertises a “hair salon with day spa and gift shop” both of which would require additional permanent parking spaces to accommodate outside customers. Neither additional use is included in the proposal. Also, despite the declaration that the conference room will only be used for incidental meetings, the owner advertises: “Meeting Space for up to 100” (Attachment 5) and lists activities such as award banquets. 100 spaces means outside visitors since there would have to be over 3 people per room for it to be hotel guests only. The Conditional Use Plan should specify: No businesses may be added that are not in the original approved Plan.

I also note that the Traffic Study repeatedly refers to overflow parking and all references to overflow parking should be removed.

There is also a new trail that connects the hotel to the Arroyo Road trail. I would like to end by pointing out that there is no analysis of whether this new trail meets the American Disability Act (ADA) requirement.

Please do not approve the amendment to the South Livermore Plan without careful consideration.

Peter Young
Friends of South Livermore
27 ATTACHMENT 6
794
new information was presented at the public hearing on January 13, 2020, to justify reversing the Planning Commission' s approval of SPDR 19- 004 and CUP 19- 006.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed and that Appeal 19- 001 is hereby denied for the reasons contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 26- 19, and as set forth in this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has duly considered and hereby adopts the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 26- 19 as its own findings, and Site Plan Design Review 19- 004 and Conditional Use Permit 19- 006 are approved subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B to this resolution, which includes three additional Project Specific Conditions imposed by the City Council through the exercise of its authority set forth in Livermore Development Code section 9. 15. 030E. 4. b to mitigate impacts from the project to protect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, and general welfare of the City:

Condition 8. 13 - The project shall provide ten, 24" box Plantanus Acerifolia London plane) trees to be planted along Hansen Road, east of the access driveway. Additionally, the project shall provide a mitigation plan at a one-totwo ratio for all trees that are being removed, for a minimum of twenty- two, 24" box trees. The project shall be required to provide on- site planting for any trees that are being removed.

Condition 8.24 - The overflowing parking shall be removed from the 100-foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road.

Condition 8.25- The maximum number of seats for the restaurant is 77 seats.

An increase in the number of seats would require review and approval by the Planning Commission.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) was adopted by the City Council for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan ( State Clearinghouse No. 96052025). The environmental analysis contained in the EIR was based on the development of a Wine Country Inn, assumed to occupy three acres, provide up to 30 rooms, and include a large restaurant with up to 100 seats on the project site. The project is within the scope of the EIR. There have not been any significant changes in conditions since the adoption of the EIR. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the project subject to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and Conditions of Approval. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination of the City Council' s certification of the environmental document with the Alameda County Clerk.
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2020- 010
Attachment 1 25328
ATTACHMENT 6
795
a. Two parking spaces shall be provided for the caretaker’s residence, apart from the required parking for the Inn.
b. The caretaker’s residence cannot be rented by guests staying at the Inn or utilized as a short-term rental.

2. Outdoor events at the Inn (such as weddings, parties, or receptions) are prohibited.

3. Parking shall be contained on site. No-use related parking shall occur within the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

4. Indoor and outdoor dining shall be limited to 77 seats combined.

5. Add a no-left turn island on the driveway to discourage left-hand turns onto Hansen Road. Provide signage stating either no left turn or right-turn only.

6. Noise generated by the project shall be in conformance with the Noise Element of the General Plan.

7. No construction allowed between the following time periods:
a. 6:00 p.m. Saturday to 7:00 a.m. Monday;
b. 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday;
c. 8:00 p.m. Friday to 9:00 a.m. Saturday; and
d. All City-observed holidays.

8. Any vines in the 100-foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road that are removed during construction, must be replaced prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

9. The area to the east and west of the access driveway is required to conform to the City Engineering standard for clear visibility at the driveway.

10. The development must include a minimum of 12 bicycle-parking stalls on site.

11. The project shall provide ten, 24” box Plantanus Acerifolia (London plane) trees to be planted along Hansen Road, east of the access driveway. Additionally, the project shall provide a mitigation plan at a one-totwo ratio for all trees that are being removed, for a minimum of twenty-two, 24” box trees. The project shall be required to provide on-site planting for any trees that are
Attachment 2 65429
ATTACHMENT 6
796

0 heq ?bamfx
-b
ReThT

%
FZTe 2bm
hPZ

y2ZeT +bo^2bm
hPZ

b
FTeePRT

?ThP] KP]^ FeT]]Zg

tvu

O
*XeZRm]hmeP]FePagZhZbaNbaT

2A,*; FD11 ET^TRiZb
AcjZb
U_
CmTeRmU PXeZWb][P
CmTeRmU ^bQPhP
%! +bp
<7J0 A*:
J*;<0M A*:
z -*@ABM FD00 ET]TRiZb
AckZb
gs BZUhPRZP RYZ
T
UZU
+bp
3P] -67@0E0 B7EF*-60
-67@0E0 0<?
A;7J0
H]fmU dPenZWb]ZP
A]TP TmebdPTP EoP
6Z]]
B^PhP
mU PRTe[Wb^ZP <[email protected]@ B<*@0
&~;{
E'G(|k[
b}
)

+bp

3P] *eQmhmg ?PeZ
P @-@
-TeRZU RP
PST
U[U 0*EF0D@ D0.+H.
Bem
mU RPeb^[
ZP
P -*DA<7@* -60DDM ;*HD0;
;PXTeUhebTfZP pW -D*B0 ?MDF;0
B*;?E
EqPXemU ebfP
rbWWZP
P
FePRYqRPedmU Wbehm
TZ

+bp
3P^

+bp
CH00@ B*;?
K7@.?7<; B*;?
E6DH+ *@. 3DAH@. -AJ0D *D0*E ET]TRiZb
AckZb
gs
;*D30 E6DH+ ET^TRiZba AckZb
g
"
-mdeTUUmU UTfdTenZeT
U
;PnPhTeP PUUmeXT
hZW]beP
9m
ZdTemU U E\qebR\Th
?0.7H? E6DH+ ET]TRiZba Ack[b
g
#
*eRhbUhPdYq]bU BPRZWZR ?ZUh
+TeQTe[U Udd
+mpmU Udd
-b]Tb
TfP Udd
-beeTP Udd
/[ThTV nTXThP
<P
hP
P fb
hTn[ST
UZU
<PnP
Sm]P Udd
@P
S[
P Udd
BYbefZmf Udd
BZhhbUdbemf Udd
DYPdYZb^Td[U m ?Z
be
FTmReZmf WemhZRP
U

3P] 3P]
7F*;7*@ -MBD0EE
FD00 ?*;;AK
E:MDA-:0F 9H@7BF0D
3P]
@-@
+*D+0DDM
+ALKAA.+D0*F6 A2 60*J0@
*HEFD*;7*@ 2H-6E7*
2ADF@846F =8>M
;*@F*@*
;*[email protected]
60*J0@;M +*?+AA
@0K N0*;*@. 2<*L
B7FFAEBADH?
.K M0..A 6*KF6AD@
+HE6 30D?*@.0D
3D*EE1EEI+ E6DI+ ET]TRiZb
AckZb
g
#
5P^
6T^ZRhbheZRYb
UTfdTenZeT
U
;PnP
Sm^P P ?m
UhTPS
?mY^T
QTeXZP RPdZ]]Pe[U 7enZ
T
FTmReZmf RYPfPTSeqU
J7@0E ET]TRhZb
Ach[b
g
$
2ZRmU dmfZ]P
BPehYTabRZUUmU heZRUd[SPhP
[email protected] ET]TRl[b
AckZb
g
$
*eRhbUhPdYm^bU 0`TeP]S -PedTh
-TP
bhYmU X *
RYbe +Pq
0eZXTeba \PenZ
U\ZP
mU
@PhZnT ?bo 2eTT
+7AEK*<0 B;*@FE ET]TRh[b
AckZb
g
$
+ZbWZ^hePh[ba EbS
-PeTp SZnm^UP-Yb
SebdThP^mf
-TP
bhYmU *
RYbe +Pq
7eZU SbmX]PUZP
P
9m
RPU dPhT
U
?mY^T
QTeXZP e[XT
U
DZQTU n[Qme
[Wb^Zmf
+;H0 A*F 3D*EE
?H@EF0*. <*[email protected]
B7@: ?H6;M 3D*EE
30D?*@.0D
3P^
-D00B7@3 273
+AEFA@ 7JM

3P^
@-@@-@
?0L7-*@ .*7EM
.0;F* +<H03D*EE EA.

3P^
.0;F* +;H03D*EE EA.
+0D:0<0M E0.30
-*B0 DHE6*@-6AD +*M -0*@AF6HE
.AH3<*E 7D7E
-*;72AD@7* 3D*M E0.30
.00D 3D*EE
0J0D3D00@ -HDD0@F

BebdbgTSEZSToP]\*]baX6PagTaDbPShbQTA`ZhhTSWeb`,baghemRhZba.ePoZaXg 0 heq
ATTACHMENT 14
73730
Attachment 3

ATTACHMENT
6 797
31 Attachment 4 Present vineyards
ATTACHMENT 6
798
Thr Lir'erul*r'r Valh:v ltrin* {-i*untry Inn is il propos*r1 3{}- rs$m Inn with large resteuirs*{, full h*r. hair salnn with day sp* and gift shop l*rated in tlr* hrautilhl South Lil'srm*rr trtTne Cmuntrv. Pr*viding *xr*pti*nal boutiquc lndging. expcrienres, $$r guests lvill rrm*rnbrr th*ir visits tbr r.c,srs l* c*nt*"
[.q'"1 I']-] Illr..r |t-
# Gather
Meeting Space for up to roo
lVhether a n'ellness retreat, girlfriend getaway,
wedding party, management meeting or top
performer awards banquet, r'e have space to
accornmodate !CIur gathering or celebration.
https://www.livermorevalleywinecountryinn.com
https://www.livermorevalleywinecountryinn.com/about
Attachment 5
32 ATTACHMENT 6
799
Planning Commission May 2, 2023
Item 5.1
I urge the Planning Commission not to support the proposed changes to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

Do not approve the Livermore Wine Country Inn as presented.

Do not approve the requested Electric Kitchen Equipment Exception.

I was a community activist when the South LivermoreValley Area Plan and South Livermore Valley Specific Plans were created and there was much work done, meetings held with stakeholders and compromises made to come up with the Plans. The standards and guidelines of the Plans were supported by the citizens and the Specific Plan was adopted by the City.

I have since served on the Board and was chair of the Tri Valley Conservancy and have supported the South Livermore Valley Plans and its protection and promotion of the open space and agriculture.

Item 17, Applicant’s Statement Letter, has a list of previous supporters of the Inn project. I am Jean King and am #6 on that list.

I thank Michelle Boss for reaching out to me and others when she was first working on the project. I support a wine country inn on the location, as did others. An inn in the location is in the Specific Plan.

But, the present Inn design does not adhere to the Specific Plan as the recent ruling of the Appellant court pointed out so correctly.

I believe that others who agreed to the concept would not support the final plan and its violation of the Specific Plan.

This location is not in a total commercial area. It is in a buffer area between urban and the open space of the South Livermore Valley.

The Specific Plan states “The design of commercial facilities shall be consistent with the rural, wine country character of the area.” 33 ATTACHMENT 6
800
Do not approve these proposed Text Amendments in Item #9. The Plan should not be changed to fit the Inn. The Inn should conform to the Plan. They are trying to fit too much in the space available. The setback requirements on this particular location should not be changed The setback on the Hansen Street access street should remain 100 feet and should be required to be planted with vineyards and orchards and not include parking and a trash enclosure.

The plan has a 2-story, approximately 2,300 square foot, threebedroom, and two-bathroom “caretakers” unit with it’s own private swimming pool. The caretaker’s unit is excluded from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the site. From the report, the rational for having this unit on-site is so that it “would allow visitors to communicate directly with management and would permit more immediate resolution contact with neighbors if the need arises”.

Maybe at the swimming pool. This seems highly unlikely. This is excessive and another reason that the development does not fit in the space under the Specific Plan rules and is asking for exceptions.

By making these changes for a particular project, the City is opening the precedent to every development wanting to have particular changes to a project. Plans are worked out so that there is consistency and uniformity in decisions.

A change can be made if there is a circumstance that affects the whole area. An example of this is the quality of the ground water in the South Valley. Since septic tanks are no long adequate, limited sewer service is now allowed in the valley for uses that support the agriculture in the Valley. Also, because of additional requirements on storage of agricultural equipment, the allowed size of agricultural buildings was increased in the county. These are changes that were studied with input from stakeholders including the vineyard and other agricultural interests and environmental groups. They were not specific changes for an individual.
34 ATTACHMENT 6
801
Item #18 asks for Electric Kitchen Equipment Exception. The reasons given are not factual. The independent Consumers Union highly recommends induction for energy-efficiency, speed and precision cooking, safety, absence of toxic fumes, absence of fossil fuels and funding from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Here are quotes from Consumers Reports:

By not having to heat that glass, induction elements are about 5 to 10 percent more energy-efficient than traditional electric heating elements. They’re also able to heat pots more precisely because of their digital controls and to bring liquids to a boil faster. In fact, high-power induction burners can boil a pot of water roughly 20 to 40 percent faster than the best gas and radiant electric ranges and cooktops we’ve tested. And because the glass top stays relatively cool, induction appliances are generally considered safer than other types.

Another safety bonus: Induction, like other electric appliances, won’t produce toxic emissions like gas stovetops do.

Induction ranges and cooktops are some of the best performers we test when compared with gas and electric models. But this cool new technology comes at a slightly higher price than traditional ranges and cooktops.

But because induction heats food faster, you’re likely to use less energy and may save on your electric bill.

You may find induction options for as little as 5 percent more than a comparable electric appliance, but premium models can cost quite a bit more.

Keep in mind that the new Inflation Reduction Act allocates funding for states to offer credits of up to $840 for new electric ranges and cooktops, including induction models.

In our testing, electric ranges are far better than gas models at broiling, and induction models are no exception—all but one of the induction models in our ratings earn a rating of Good or better for broiling. The best models heat evenly and get roaring hot, which should mean nicely seared meats or beautifully baked ziti. 35 ATTACHMENT 6
802
You may be surprised to discover that almost all your existing pots and pans are compatible with induction, with the exception of a few nonstick aluminum pieces. “Magnetic stainless steel, cast iron, and pretty much all cookware made from multiple layers of metal is magnetic. It’s really just stamped aluminum fry pans and anodized aluminum cookware that won’t work,” says Paul Hope, a trained chef who is also our in-house cooking appliance expert.

All the cast-iron Dutch ovens, cast-iron and carbon steel frying pans, and stainless steel cookware sets and frying pans we test can be used with induction cooktops.

All-copper frying pans and aluminum nonstick cookware sets and frying pans typically cannot.

The oven works exactly like one on any electric range, so you can use all the cookware and bakeware you have in your cabinets now.

End of quotes from Consumer Union Reports
Statement from the American Lung Association September 2022 “After a comprehensive literature review, our research found that the household use of methane gas, wood, propane and heating oil impacts indoor air quality, health, and drives climate change through the emission of compounds such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, formaldehyde and others.” A recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology found that at least 21 different types of VOC classified as hazardous air pollutants can be emitted into your home via gas stoves.Jan 11, 2023 Natural gas cooking appliances, which are used by a third of U.S. households, can contribute to poor indoor air quality, especially when used without an exhaust hood.1 Gas stoves emit nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and formaldehyde (HCHO), each of which can exacerbate various respiratory and other health ailments.2,3,4 In a study reported in this issue of EHP, researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Stanford University developed a simulation model to estimate gas stoves emissions and the exposures experienced by different household members.
36 ATTACHMENT 6
803
This new building should comply with climate goals to reduce fossil fuel use. It should be electric induction cooking.

It seems like another instance where the applicant does not want to conform to the city rules but wants the the city to conform to their wishes.

I urge the Planning Commission not to support the proposed changes to the Specific Plan.

Do not approve this Livermore Wine Country Inn.

Do not approve the requested Electric Kitchen Equipment Exception.

Thank you.

Jean King
Livermore CA
37 ATTACHMENT 6
804
38 ATTACHMENT 6
805
39 ATTACHMENT 6
806
40 ATTACHMENT 6
807
1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Planned Unit Development Amendment #01-001
(Amending PUD #165)
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Subarea 5, Parcel D
Centex Homes
Establish residential and commercial development standards for 94 residential lots, and three commercial parcels measuring between two and three acres each Northwest corner of the Arroyo Road / Wetmore Road intersection Prepared: April 5, 2001
Recommended by Planning Commission
June 5, 2001
Approved by City Council
July 23, 2001
PURPOSE: The purpose of establishing this Planned Unit Development Permit is to regulate the development of 81.7 acres of land at the northwest corner of the Arroyo Road / Wetmore Road intersection consistently with the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan).

I. The intent of this Planned Unit Development Permit is to accomplish the following:

1. To provide an environment exclusive for and conductive to the development and protection of residential and limited commercial development.

2. To provide for an aesthetically attractive residential and limited commercial environment.

3. Implement the goals and policies of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) for Subarea 5 Parcel D (Specific Plan).

4. To protect the natural resources and amenities present on the site including vineyards, open space, and the various plant and animal species which use the site.

Zoning Code Conformance: Development shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Specific Plan and Zoning Code as it exists now or as modified by the City and as modified by the following regulations:

ATTACHMENT 7
808
2 II. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
A. USES PERMITTED: The following are the permitted principal uses for Site 5D1 and 5D2 and 5D3 as identified in the Specific Plan Chapter 12 (also identified as Parcels D and E and F on VTTM #7171. All commercial development shall be subject to Site Plan Approval (Specific Plan Policy 4-5). Only those commercial uses identified in the Specific Plan (Page 4-30 and Chapter 12) will be permitted.

1. Site 5D1
Wine Country Center: The following uses are permitted in the Wine Country Center: (Tenant spaces shall not to exceed 5,000 square feet) a. Wine Country Restaurants, including delis
b. Specialty Food, including:
i) Wine, Beer
ii) Cheese
iii) Chocolate / Candy
iv) General Gourmet
v) Ice Cream
vi) Pastry / Deserts
vii) Yogurt / Dairy
viii) Wine Tasting
c. Specialty Goods and Services, including:
i) Cooking Supplies / Culinary
ii) Decorator / Arts
iii) Art Galleries
iv) China / Specialty Glassware
v) Specialty Crafts
vi) Cameras / Photography
vii) Flowers
d. Visitor Services, including:
i) Bicycle Rental
ii) Hot Air Balloon Rides
iii) Tourism Information
Maximum site area is 3 acres. Maximum development potential is 25,000 square feet.

2. Site 5D2
Wine Country Inn: A hotel facility with no more than 30 guestrooms. May have a large restaurant (defined as: a sit-down restaurant, i.e. no take-out, that seats between 50 and 100 people) associated with it. Maximum site size is 3 acres. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.25.

ATTACHMENT 7
809
3 3. Site 5D3
Small winery: A winery that produces 5,000 to 10,000 cases of wine per year.

Maximum site area of 3 acres, with up to 10,000 square feet of building area, including bottling/crushing facilities, lab and office space, tasting room storage, an indoor events room, and a small out door event or picnic area. A winery must accomplish at least two of the following four activities on site:
crushing, fermentation, bulk aging/storage, and bottling.

B. CONDITIONAL USES:

1. Additional accessory activities and uses that support the listed uses may be permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

2. One caretakers unit. (Specific Plan Policy 4-5)
C. ACCESSORY USES:

1. Temporary subdivision construction office, sales office, and model home complex subject to the issuance of a Zoning Use Permit.

2. Off-street parking related to any use permitted.

3. Accessory structures and buildings related to any use permitted

4. Signs.

5. Temporary Uses.

D. COMMERCIAL SITE REQUIREMENTS / COMMUNITY DESIGN

1. Setbacks:
a. Building setbacks for all commercial uses shall be 100 feet from road frontages (setback shall be measured from the closest commercial building to the nearest right-of-way frontage). Setback areas shall be planted with orchard or vineyards.
b. Setbacks from Hansen Way: 50 feet
c. Side and rear yard: none, provided consistent with Chapter 12 of the Specific Plan.

2. Development must comply with Chapter 12, Commercial Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan (Chapter 12 of the Specific Plan attached for reference, Attachment #1)

3. Access to commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2 shall be limited to one access point on Hansen Road (the east-west collector road) for each site. Access to commercial site 5D3 shall be limited to one point of access to Wetmore Road (page 12-8 through 12-11 Prototypical site plans Site 5D1, 5D2, and 5D3).

4. The project shall protect Livermore’s cultural heritage and historic resources consistent with City policies, including the preservation and/or adaptive reuse of sites, buildings, structures, and other features that are related to or reminiscent of the South Valley’s rural, agricultural heritage. Specific Plan ATTACHMENT 7
810
4 Parcel 5D3 is the location of the remains Wetmore home. Although the remains of the home have no formal status an historic resource, future commercial development shall commemorate by marking and, preferably, incorporating the site into the new development of the site. Such development might utilize the foundations in the structuring of a garden or picnic area for wine country visitors.

III. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
A. USES PERMITTED: The following are the permitted principal uses:

1. 94 Detached Single Family Dwellings on 81.7 acres as shown on attached PUD Site Plan Exhibit #1 House Plotting Plan - Preliminary Development Plan (VTTM #7171 – Exhibit #1 is for illustrative purposes only, denoting the areas of streets, vineyards, residential, and potential housing plan layout).

2. Secondary housing units above detached garages on Lots identified on the development plans only, subject to Specific Plan requirements including but not limited to height, setback and Floor Area Ratio restrictions.

3. Open space, park, and agricultural uses limited to vineyards or orchards on Parcel A and Lots G, H, and I (VTTM #7171).

B. ACCESSORY USES: The following are the permitted accessory uses:

1. Temporary subdivision construction office, sales office, and model home complex subject to the issuance of a Zoning Use Permit.

2. Off-street parking related to any use permitted.

3. Accessory structures and buildings related to any use permitted except home occupations. The Specific Plan provisions govern detached garages approved and constructed with the original development. All other accessory structures are subject to General Provisions Section 20.00 as it exist now or amended in the future.

4. Accessory uses as follows:
a. Rooming and/or boarding of more than two persons.
b. Home Occupations.
c. Nursery Schools and Day Care Centers as regulated by Section 21.59 of the Zoning Code.
d. Signs (Section 21.70).

C. CONDITIONAL USES: The following uses are intended as secondary uses for the residential portion of this Planned Unit Development Permit and are to be permitted only after the permitted uses have created a demonstrable demand for the conditional uses.

1. Nursery schools and day care centers as regulated by Section 21.59.

ATTACHMENT 7
811
5 2. Secondary dwelling units as regulated by Section 21.30 and page 9-20 of the Specific Plan.

3. Bed and breakfast uses limited to six units per use.

D. SITE REQUIREMENTS/COMMUNITY DESIGN Development must comply with Chapter 9, Community Design, of the Specific Plan (Chapter 9 copied herein for reference, see Attachment #2)
E. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:

Prior to recordation of the Final Map for VTTM #7171, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance of the project with the following requirements to the approval of the Planning Division.

1. Plot plans shall be reviewed and approved by release. Each release shall provide evidence of consistency with the above sections regulating floor area ratio, elevation mix, lot variation, garage variation, and setback variation (Specific Plan, Chapter 9). Applicant shall submit individual plot plans indicating the following information: plot plan to scale, lot area and dimensions, floor plan, roof pitch distribution and percentage, porch areas, number of stories, building height, roof lines, floor area ratio calculation (including maximum square foot allowed and proposed), tentative tract map number, final map number, lot number for both the tentative and final map, setback configuration (lot setback type A, B, C, or D), on-site landscaped square footage, fencing locations including type, and required setbacks, (see Specific Plan Page 9-12). The applicant shall also submit figures for total number of lots with A, B, C, D configurations for the overall project to date. A housing mix plan similar to Exhibit #1 shall be submitted with each release. (Note: Any house with a front porch that encroaches at least five feet into the front setback and whose porch depth exceeds five feet shall be deemed consistent with the “build to” setback requirements of the SLVSP.) F. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS:

1. Building Elevations
a. Revise the Craftsman style elevation for Plan One to create a wider porch that is better proportioned relative to the rest of the front facade. b. Revise the Shingle style elevation for Plan One to provide a six-foot depth to the section of porch on the left-hand side of the elevation. c. Revise the glazing pattern on the garage door of the Folk Victorian style elevations in Plans Two, Three and Four to be more consistent with the simple, rectilinear glazing patterns used on the house.

ATTACHMENT 7
812
6 2. Landscape Design
a. Submit a comprehensive fencing plan that demonstrates consistency with SLVSP fencing guidelines. Specifically, the fencing plan needs to:
• show where agricultural fencing will be used and provide a design detail for that fencing;
• identify where and what type of fencing will be used throughout the project;
• demonstrate that street frontage side yard privacy fencing does not extend along more than 50 percent of the length of the lot frontage, and is set back at least five feet from pedestrian walkways; and • show that no privacy fencing is proposed forward of or within 10 feet of the front façade of the associated home.
b. Revise the Tentative Map and Entry Landscape diagram to identify the location of future driveways into commercial parcels B and C from Twin Oaks Drive, and adjust landscape treatment accordingly. c. Submit a more detailed landscape plan that clearly demonstrates consistency with the design intentions of policies on pages 9-29 and -30 of the SLVSP relating to streetscape character, number and spacing of trees and shade coverage.
d. Minor revisions to the plans may be approved by City Staff.

G. OTHER REQUIRED CONDITIONS: The following additional conditions shall apply to any project within this Planned Development.

1. No more than 50 percent of the street trees shall be of a single species.

2. The hedgerow near Wetmore Road shall not be modified without approval of the City Council.

3. Architectural elevations and floor plans shall be modified as follows:
a. Elevation 1A – Double pillars shall be replaced with single pillars, the stone façade between pillar bases shall be replaced with shingle siding. b. Elevation 1C – The design of the upper level arched window shall be redesigned to a more traditional style.
c. Elevation 3B – The second story hipped roof shall be redesigned to have proportions that are consistent with the mass of the building.

ATTACHMENT 7
813
7 d. Elevation 3C – The paired columns shall be replaced with single columns.
e. Elevation 3E – The diameter of the columns on the lower part of the building shall be increased and the French doors glass style shall be consistent with the other windows.
f. Elevation 5C – The design of the upper level arched window shall be redesigned to a more traditional style, the doorway shall be emphasized, and the double columns shall be eliminated. g. Elevation 5E – Wrought iron grill elements shall be added to the window boxes in the central section of the house and shall coordinate with the wrought iron on the right side of the house.
h. A minimum five-foot windowsill height is required for the secondary housing units above the detached garages on TTM #7171 Lots 2, 19, 34, 40, 46, 47, 62, 81, and 82.
i. Secondary Unit windows shall be clear and operable.

4. The applicant shall provide a written response for every condition of approval contained herein. The response shall clearly identify how the condition has been satisfied. Where a condition has been satisfied in a specific document or drawing set, the response shall direct the plan checker to the specific page/reference where the condition has been met.

5. The exercise of the rights granted by this Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD #01-001) shall coincide with the life of Development Agreement #70-99 as it is approved or as may be amended in the future.

6. Within 90 days following the date of approval, the applicant shall cause to be filed with the Planning Division: 1) a recorded description of the subject property in conformance with Section 26.74 of the Zoning Ordinance noting that said property is regulated by a Planned Unit Development Permit, and 2) a statement of agreement to the conditions imposed by this permit.

7. A variance to the terms of this Planned Unit Development Permit may be approved by the Planning Commission subject to the requirements of Specific Plan and Chapter 27.00 of the Zoning Code.

8. The developer shall provide for an ongoing agricultural information officer consistent with the City's Right-to-Farm Ordinance.

9. This Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD #01-001) is not valid until the developer has successfully processed an annexation application through the ATTACHMENT 7
814
8 Local Agency Formation Commission and the City. The annexation must be consistent with Annexation # Z-537 (DA #70-99).

10. The permittee shall dedicate, plant, and secure maintenance of agricultural lands within the South Livermore Valley Area Plan in a location and manner consistent with all applicable Specific Plan policies and Development Agreement #70-99.

11. The applicant shall execute agricultural easements on all on-site mitigation lands with the filing of the first final map. Planting of the on-site mitigation lands shall occur prior to or within 12 months of the filing of each final map, consistent with the Tentative Tract Map and pursuant to Development Agreement #70-99 (VTTM #7171 on-site mitigation Parcels D, E, and F and Lots G, H, and I).

12. The project site shall comply with the maximum 38 percent floor area ratio of the Specific Plan (no averaging will be used, and therefore, additions consistent with the Specific Plan are permitted). (Specific Plan Chapter 9,

Page 9 ends

12) FAR. Lots 11,000 square feet or less shall have a Maximum FAR of 40 percent and an Average FAR (for all lots 11,000 square feet or less within the project) of 35 percent.

Lots larger than 11,000 square feet shall have a Maximum FAR of 38 percent and an Average FAR (for all lots over 11,000 square feet within the project) of 35 percent.

FAR Averaging. FAR Averaging Provisions listed above (MaximumFAR/Average-FAR Provisions) are authorized for the development. No subsequent additions of floor area shall be permitted for any building on any lot within the development. (Specific Plan Chapter 9, Page 9-10, Section b.1).

13. The developer shall include a Notice of Land Use Limitation on the deeds to alert property owners that no subsequent additions are permitted within the development.

14. The developer shall periodically notify all property owners that no further residential additions are permitted.

15. Additional tree studies will be required with the individual Site Plan Approval applications for development on the commercial sites.

16. The agricultural clear zones along the Arroyo Road and Wetmore shall be 35 feet, if parallel and 18 if perpendicular. (Specific Plan Page 9-25).

ATTACHMENT 7
815
9 17. Retail uses and for-profit major attractions in the Specific Plan area will be required to pay an agricultural mitigation fee of $2.50 per square foot to the South Livermore Valley Agricultural Land Trust. Fee amounts should be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Only those uses that might be considered “pure” retail (e.g., retail uses that sell products that are not produced in the South Valley) would be subject to the mitigation fee. This definition includes primarily the retail uses and for-profit major attractions that are proposed in the “wine country center” in Subarea #5D of the Specific Plan. Commercial uses not subject to the agricultural mitigation fee include restaurants, bed-and-breakfasts, inns, and wineries or other agriculture-based commercial operations.

Exhibits:
#1 - Housing Mix Plan / Preliminary Development Plan (for illustrative purposes only)
Attachments:
#1 - Specific Plan Chapter 9
#2 - Specific Plan Chapter 12
s/apps/puds/2001/amendments/pud amend. #01-001
ATTACHMENT 7
816
NTEX HCME5
October 24, 2003
~855 Gateway Blvd. Suite #850
p (J°ncord, California 94520-8417
ADMINISTRATIVE . ~827-81 00
DATE -IL2~--7t:/"'0? I Fax: 92~81'0 .

BY
Steve SteVfart
City ofLiVemlore
Community Development DepaI1ment
1052 S.. Livermore Ave.

LivemKJre, CA 94550-4899
Re: Tr. 7171 & 7343- Los Olivos
Request for 2 additional Guest suites
Steve:

OF APPROVAL
0 SEE "RED ~KS" ON PLANS
ONOCONDITIONS~Q~~D .l-51 ,~ Jf I1tkl~ t.J~~~f) ~L4- ~ ~ The City Council approved Los Olivos for 23 Guest Suites To date five granny suites kve been ~ ~ O',-'t. cons1IUCted and 13 lots approved for guestsuites have been built without their inclusiQn. Five ~~ lots approved for guest suites have not been pennitted. This information is slnntnarized in the '-U .,"- table below.

T _~I'Y'___~ I TT~O~~P!~~~~dFo~~~~~"~~~~:J TT :_~---~ Lot J Tract House permitted House perIiritted I House not yet and built with and built without I permitted ~est suite guest suite
2/7171
4(7171
15 f7171
l!m2I
25/7171
33/7171 .
341n71 c
4017171
,
46/7171 I
47/7171
5217171
60 /7171
62/7171
66/7171
72/7171
73/7171
75/7111 .' ..
16:11171
'79:17171
,!'
8117171 ;C"c 82./7171
1 i7343 ,
7f7343--
x
-~
x
x
x
x
~
x
x
-~-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
As you know, we have deleted 5 plan 2'5 from the original B-1 and replaced them with Plan 1'5 and p'lan 3 '5. This change has allowed for opportunity to build two additional guest suites and still. be within the allowable FAR' 5. ; Please consider approving LOt 16 tr. 7171 and Lot 9 tr. 7343 for guest suites . ..

ATTACHMENT 7
817
NAME
DATE

Page 2 ends

If: you hav:e any further questions, please notifY me at (925) 827-8100 x264.

Thank you
Sincerely,

CENI'EX HOMES
Northern Califoriria Division
Jeff Jacobs
Land Development Manager
cc: file
ATTACHMENT 7
818
City of Livermore South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004 2.0 Planning Area Description
2-3
ATTACHMENT 8
819
ATTACHMENT 9
820
ATTACHMENT 9
821
ATTACHMENT 9
822
ATTACHMENT 9
823
*8(675220
.,1*%('
*8(675220'28%/(48((1%('6
$'$*8(675220.,1*%('
*8(675220'28%/(48((1%('6

ATTACHMENT
9 824
ATTACHMENT 9
825
ATTACHMENT 9
826
ATTACHMENT 9
827
ATTACHMENT 9
828
ATTACHMENT 9
829
ATTACHMENT 9
830
ATTACHMENT 9
831
ATTACHMENT 9
832
ATTACHMENT 9
833
)/2253/$1
6,'((/(9$7,21 )5217(/(9$7,21 522)3/$16,'((/(9$7,21 5($5(/(9$7,21

ATTACHMENT
9 834
ATTACHMENT 9
835
ATTACHMENT 9
836
ATTACHMENT 9
837
6(&21')/2253/$1

ATTACHMENT
9 838

ATTACHMENT 9
839
&
&
&
& &&&
&&&&&&&&&&

6725$*(
23(172%(/2:
6725$*(
'(&.
&21)(5(1&(5220
23(172%(/2:
'(&.
23(172%(/2:
$$
$$
$$
&&
''''''
:
:
: :
: :
&&
''
&&
::
: : :
: :
$$
:
: :
:
:
:

3$5.,1*$5($6/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11
,OOXPLQDQFH
)F

$YHUDJH
0D[LPXP 0LQLPXP
$YJ0LQ5DWLR
0D[0LQ5DWLR

&2857<$5'
/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11,OOXPLQDQFH
)F

$YHUDJH
0D[LPXP 0LQLPXP
$YJ0LQ5DWLR 1$
0D[0LQ5DWLR 1$

MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE
/XPLQDLUH6FKHGXOH/('3URMHFW
/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11
6\PERO 4W\ /DEHO $UUDQJHPHQW /XP:DWWV /XP/XPHQV //) //' /'' 8') 'HVFULSWLRQ )LOHQDPH $$ 6,1*/(

67(51%(5*/('$5&70'/&6$ /('$5&70'/&6$,(6
&& 6,1*/(

67(51%(5*/('$5&70'/&6$ /('$5&70'/&6$,(6
'' 6,1*/(

67(51%(5*/('$5&70'/&6$ /('$5&70'/&6$,(6
: 6,1*/(

(9(5*5((1)/2/6
3525$7(')520)/2/
)/2/6LHV
: 6,1*/(

(9(5*5((1)/2/ )/2/LHV
&DOFXODWLRQ6XPPDU\
3URMHFW
/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11'HVFULSWLRQ &DOF7\SH 8QLWV *ULG= $YJ 0D[ 0LQ $YJ0LQ 0D[0LQ 1')/225'(&.$1'+$//:$<6 ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 1$ 1$ 3$5.,1*$5($6 ,OOXPLQDQFH )F &2857<$5' ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 1$ 1$
/$5*('(&. ,OOXPLQDQFH )F
60$//%$/&21< ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 67$,56 ,OOXPLQDQFH )F
$*,9(56,21

$*,
&

/,*+7,1*$1$/<676,1&
:&(17(11,$/52$'68,7(
/,77/(721&2

6$/(65(35(6(17$7,9(
$/5
-2+1%(1621
GLIIHUHQFHVZLOORFFXUEHWZHHQPHDVXUHGYDOXHVDQGFDOFXODWHGYDOXHVOLJKWLQJFDOFXODWLRQV,IWKHUHDOHQYLURQPHQWFRQGLWLRQVGRQRWPDWFKWKHLQSXWGDWDGLPHQVLRQVUHIOHFWDQFHVIXUQLWXUHDQGDUFKLWHFWXUDOHOHPHQWVVLJQLILFDQWO\DIIHFWWKHYDULDWLRQV,QSXWGDWDXVHGWRJHQHUDWHWKHDWWDFKHGFDOFXODWLRQVVXFKDVURRPPHDVXUHPHQWWHFKQLTXHVDQGILHOGFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVYROWDJHDQGWHPSHUDWXUHWROHUDQFHVLQFDOFXODWLRQPHWKRGVWHVWLQJSURFHGXUHVFRPSRQHQWSHUIRUPDQFH6RPHGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQPHDVXUHGYDOXHVDQGFDOFXODWHGUHVXOWVPD\RFFXUGXHWR &DOFXODWLRQVKDYHEHHQSHUIRUPHGDFFRUGLQJWR,(6VWDQGDUGVDQGJRRGSUDFWLFH %<
$33/,&$7,216(1*,1((5,1*
5$021=$3$7$5(3257)25
6'*$5&+,7(&76
3+21(

)$;

2$./$1'&$
32%2;3$5'((/$1($662&,$7('/,*+7,1*5(35(6(17$7,9(6,1& $//9$/8(66+2:1$5(0$,17$,1('+25,=217$/)227&$1'/(6$7*5$'( /$03%$//$67(/(&75,&$/$1'6,7(&+$5$&7(5,67,&6/$035$7,1*6),(/'3(5)250$1&(:,//'(3(1'21$&78$/,6%$6('21(67$%/,6+(',(6352&('85(6$1'38%/,6+('3+2720(75,&'$7$86('$6,1387)257+(6(&$/&8/$7,216 '$7(

2)

6&$/( 6+((7 5(9
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
'5$:,1*12,1387),/(
/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11
&,7<2)/,9(5025(
%(15':*%(15$

ATTACHMENT
9 840

6725$*(
6725$*(
'(&.
&21)(5(1&(5220
23(172%(/2:
23(172%(/2:
: :
::
: : :
: :
:
: :
:
:
:

MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE
23(172%(/2:
23(172%(/2:
:
:
: :
:
:

&2857<$5'/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11
,OOXPLQDQFH
)F

$YHUDJH
0D[LPXP 0LQLPXP
$YJ0LQ5DWLR 1$
0D[0LQ5DWLR 1$

MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE MATCHLINE
& &&& &&&
&&&&&&&&&&

6725$*(
23(172%(/2:
6725$*(
'(&.
&21)(5(1&(5220
23(172%(/2:
'(&.
23(172%(/2:
$$
$$
$$
&&
''''''
::
: :
: :
&&
''
&&
::
: : :
: :
$$
:
: :
:
::

3$5.,1*$5($6/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11
,OOXPLQDQFH
)F

$YHUDJH 0D[LPXP 0LQLPXP $YJ0LQ5DWLR 0D[0LQ5DWLR

&2857<$5' /,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11 ,OOXPLQDQFH
)F
$YHUDJH 0D[LPXP 0LQLPXP $YJ0LQ5DWLR 1$ 0D[0LQ5DWLR 1$

/XPLQDLUH6FKHGXOH/('3URMHFW
/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11
6\PERO 4W\ /DEHO $UUDQJHPHQW /XP:DWWV /XP/XPHQV //) //' /'' 8') 'HVFULSWLRQ )LOHQDPH $$ 6,1*/(

67(51%(5*/('$5&70'/&6$ /('$5&70'/&6$,(6
&& 6,1*/(

67(51%(5*/('$5&70'/&6$ /('$5&70'/&6$,(6
'' 6,1*/(

67(51%(5*/('$5&70'/&6$ /('$5&70'/&6$,(6
: 6,1*/(

(9(5*5((1)/2/6
3525$7(')520)/2/
)/2/6LHV
: 6,1*/(

(9(5*5((1)/2/ )/2/LHV
&DOFXODWLRQ6XPPDU\
3URMHFW
/,9(5025(:,1(&28175<,11'HVFULSWLRQ &DOF7\SH 8QLWV *ULG= $YJ 0D[ 0LQ $YJ0LQ 0D[0LQ 1')/225'(&.$1'+$//:$<6 ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 1$ 1$ 3$5.,1*$5($6 ,OOXPLQDQFH )F &2857<$5' ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 1$ 1$
/$5*('(&. ,OOXPLQDQFH )F
60$//%$/&21< ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 67$,56 ,OOXPLQDQFH )F
$*,9(56,21

$*,
&

/,*+7,1*$1$/<676,1&
:&(17(11,$/52$'68,7(
/,77/(721&2

ATTACHMENT
9 841

0 heq ?bamfx
-b
ReThT

%
FZTe 2bm
hPZ

y2ZeT +bo^2bm
hPZ

b
FTeePRT

?ThP] KP]^ FeT]]Zg

tvu

O
*XeZRm]hmeP]FePagZhZbaNbaT

3P] *eQmhmg ?PeZ
P @-@
-TeRZU RP
PST
U[U 0*EF0D@ D0.+H.
Bem
mU RPeb^[
ZP
P -*DA<7@* -60DDM ;*HD0;
;PXTeUhebTfZP pW -D*B0 ?MDF;0
B*;?E
EqPXemU ebfP
rbWWZP
P
FePRYqRPedmU Wbehm
TZ

+bp
3P^

3P^
@-@@-@
?0L7-*@ .*7EM
.0;F* +<H03D*EE EA.

3P^
.0;F* +;H03D*EE EA.
+0D:0<0M E0.30
-*B0 DHE6*@-6AD +*M -0*@AF6HE
.AH3<*E 7D7E
-*;72AD@7* 3D*M E0.30
.00D 3D*EE
0J0D3D00@ -HDD0@F

BebdbgTSEZSToP]\*]baX6PagTaDbPShbQTA`ZhhTSWeb`,baghemRhZba.ePoZaXg 0 heq

ATTACHMENT
9 842
ATTACHMENT 9
843
ATTACHMENT 9
844
ATTACHMENT 9
845
ATTACHMENT 9
846
N
ATTACHMENT 9
847
ATTACHMENT 9
848
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
X
X
X
X
OHW
ATTACHMENT 9
849
ATTACHMENT 9
850
ATTACHMENT 9
851
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
ATTACHMENT 9
852
Livermore Wine Country Inn
Livermore, CA
July 18, 2019
Michelle Boss
2231 Hampton Road, Livermore CA 94550
408-449-7697

REAR ELEVATION
A008
SDG Architects, Inc. II 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120
Brentwood, CA 94513
925.634.lCXXl I sdgarchiteclsinc.com
architects
ATTACHMENT 10
853
)FBEJOH&BTUPO)BOTFO3PBEUPXBSET"SSPZP3PBE
ATTACHMENT 10
854
Livermore Wine Country Inn
Livermore, CA
July 18, 2019
Michelle Boss
2231 Hampton Road, Livermore CA 94550
408-449-7697
0 I
________ ...;_ _____________________ _lliifiliQim,)1•/Nfl!Jt:! 1,t-W;,1':!
1,1:1tf!l:i}r:;w•rr:m;:t-'iJ1mlWGi'iiFW!iG�J

RIGHT ELEVATION
A007
SDG Architects, Inc. II 3361 Walnut Blvd. Suite 120
Brentwood, CA 94513
925.634.lCXXl I sdgarchiteclsinc.com
architects
ATTACHMENT 10
855
1SPKFDUFOUSBODFPO)BOTFO3PBE
ATTACHMENT 10
856
ATTACHMENT 11
857
L. Michelle Boss
2231 Hampton Road
Livermore, CA 94550
(408) 449-7697
[email protected]
April 20, 2023
City of Livermore - Community Development Department
ATTN: Planning Commission & City Council
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Re: APPLICANT STATEMENT
Esteemed Planning Commissioners, Council Members and Mr. Mayor:

As the Applicant of the Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn (LVWCI) project, located on the southwest corner of Hansen and Arroyo Roads, this is the first time I have submitted a public statement on behalf of the project.

As a Livermore resident, I am not your typical developer. I live, work and raise my children in the City and community of Livermore. My husband, Jason Lake, and I have been residents of Livermore and neighbors of our project since 2005 and 2016, respectively. Once this project is built, we plan to live onsite and continue being very involved in the business and our community.

We are responsible individuals, citizens, and parents. We are responsible business owners and neighbors dedicated to the community of Livermore.

I have spent the last five years working on this project. I encourage you to view our website and the video of me talking about the vision of this project at:
https://www.livermorevalleywinecountryinn.com.

Not only have I contributed personal funds, countless hours and entrepreneurial risk into this project, but have faced 2 ½ years of litigation. As a result of the court delays, my development and carrying costs have more than doubled from the original project budget. This endeavor has certainly been a labor of love. My passion persists however, not only because of the 1 ATTACHMENT 12
858
potential entrepreneurial reward, but because of what I repeatedly heard from many community stakeholders before deciding to pursue this project: there is a dire need in Livermore for wine country lodging.

It is well known and now well documented in the 2022 study by the Tri-Valley Conservancy and UC Davis, that our beloved and historic Wine Country is at a critical tipping point. Did you know that Livermore is actually the origin of the California wine industry? Many of the Cabernet and Chardonnay clones from Livermore, originally brought from Europe and propagated here in the Livermore Valley, now cover much of California. I learned that in Leadership Livermore as a graduate of the 2019 class. I was even more endeared to the region upon learning this, and share that with all visitors my husband and I host.

As you know, this project is very important to the City of Livermore. It represents significant support for our wine growers, economic benefits via tax revenues and job generation. It is a critical milestone to get the Livermore Wine region on the International map so we can continue to grow our agri-tourism industry.

The LVWCI project is exactly what was intended in the South Livermore Valley Specific Development Plan and is designed in the exact spirit of what was envisioned over twenty years ago.

In the initial City approval process of this project in 2018 and 2019, there was very significant support demonstrated by our community. The County of Alameda, City of Livermore, local and regional business owners, community stakeholders, residents and even out of town supporters were in support of this project. Many attended the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to speak in favor of the project.

Additionally, a compelling number of letters of overwhelming support were submitted to the City of Livermore on behalf of the LVWCI project. I encourage you to read through those letters in the City records from:

1. Tri-Valley Conservancy

2. Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce

3. Charles T. Crohare, Olivina LLC

4. Dan Rosenberg & Bob Bossi, Owners of Dante Robere Vineyards

5. Livermore Downtown, Inc.

6. Jean King, Livermore Resident

7. Kim Fuller, General Partner, Livermore Valley Tennis Club

8. Livermore Valley WineGrowers Association

9. Michael Fredrich, Livermore Resident

10. Derek & Rhiannon Eddy, Proprietors of The Purple Orchid Inn & Spa

11. Visit Tri-Valley
2 ATTACHMENT 12
859

12. Teresa A. Lagiss, Livermore Resident & Project Neighbor

13. Friends of Open Space & Vineyards

14. Christine Wente, President, Wente Foundation for Arts Education, Fifth Generation Winegrower, Wente Family Estates

15. Nicholas Harvey, Founder / CEO, Bay Area Redwood

16. Vicki Hubbard, Pleasanton Resident

17. Charlene & Tim Doppee, Livermore Residents & Project Neighbor

18. Eric Eltringham, Southern California Resident

19. Craig Waugh, Livermore Resident

20. Chris Chandler, Former Executive Director of the Livermore Valley WineGrowers Association

21. Debbie Davison, Petaluma Resident and future consumer of the Livermore Valley

22. Kat Weiss, Livermore Resident & Landscape Architect, Project Neighbor

23. Michael & Renata Class, Livermore Residents

24. Stephanie Stuart, former Livermore Resident

25. Terry Land, Livermore Resident

26. Mony Nop, Livermore Resident

27. Brad Tucker, Tri-Valley Resident

28. John Farris, Livermore Resident

29. Chelsea Anderson, Livermore Resident

30. Ryan Ranchhod, Hotel Developer & Central Valley Resident

31. Grace Pomroy, Washington State Resident

32. Tim Otto, Stockton, CA Resident

33. Heidi Griffin, Livermore Resident

34. Jennifer Karp, Michigan State Resident

35. Ellen Goold, Livermore Resident

36. Kurt Chambliss, Tri-Valley Resident

37. Peter Niles, Tri-Valley Resident

38. Lisa Fairchild, Pleasanton Resident

39. Jim & Peg Folta, Livermore Residents

40. Nathan O’Neal, Livermore Resident

41. Tyler Clements, Livermore Resident

42. Laura Batti & John Hogan, Livermore Residents

43. Nick Bell, Former Tri-Valley Resident

44. Kelly Bair, Livermore Resident & Project Neighbor

45. Cameran Haire & Bruce Mackinlay, Livermore Residents & Project Neighbor

46. S.P.A.R.C Theatre & Livermore Shakespeare Festival Board

47. Edison Guerra, Livermore Resident

48. Nancy Calhoun Mueller, 5th Generation Livermore resident

49. Jim Fiato, Livermore Resident
3 ATTACHMENT 12
860

50. Sandra Stuart, Livermore Resident

51. Karl Wente, COO & Chief Winemaker, Wente Family Vineyards

52. Stu Bailey, Tri-Valley Resident

53. Jeff McDaniel, Lake Tahoe Resident

54. John Boss, Pacific Properties, Business Owner in Rohnert Park, CA

55. James Kicker, Livermore Resident

56. Mark Codiroli, Livermore Resident & Project Neighbor

57. Thomas Eltringham, Rio Vista, CA Resident

58. CJ Stark, Half Moon Bay, CA Resident

59. Kimbrely Gruidl, Fremont Bank Executive & Livermore Resident

60. Linda Green, Stockton, CA Resident

61. Aly Wente O’Neal, 5th Generation Winemaker, Livermore Resident & Project Neighbor

62. Steven Kirch, Livermore Resident

63. Jake & Kate Walsh, Livermore Residents & Project Neighbor

64. Larry Dino, Owner, Cuda Ridge Winery, Project Neighbor

65. Ron Scudder, Livermore Resident & Project Neighbor

66. Holger Hornisch, Former Wood Family Winery General Manager

67. Tamara O’Meara, Livermore Resident

68. Kimm Hargraves, Livermore Resident & Project Neighbor

69. Dara Connolly, Tri-Valley Resident

70. Wendy Travis-Cook, Tri-Valley Resident

71. David Tognela, Tri-Valley Resident

72. Angela Casillas, Tri-Valley Resident

73. Shelley Lumm, Dublin, CA Resident

74. Lydia Eltringham, Rio Vista, CA Resident

75. Susie Boss, Arboga, CA Resident
The project now has an even larger group of supporters in favor of moving forward as designed.

What I’d like to instill today, if nothing else, is that the sole reason this project is coming before you for re-approval is because of a very small, but loud, group of NIMBY (not in my backyard) neighbors, that have vehemently opposed this project from the start and got lucky in finding a legal loophole to get to where we are at today. This group does NOT represent the greater neighborhood sentiment, community majority or any other significant community stakeholder nor business owner in Livermore.

The fact is, this exact project - a 30-room Inn with a large restaurant and caretaker’s unit - was planned and zoned for this specific parcel many years before the nearby homes were built. The time and place for opposing this development was long before a developer came along and invested significant time and resources to make this Inn a reality for our community. 4 ATTACHMENT 12
861
Unfortunately, despite myself and City staff reaching out early in the planning process, gathering feedback from all neighbors at two separate community meetings, and then addressing concerns with multiple concessions and conditions, this small group of NIMBY’s still pursued litigation.

After 2 ½ years of court delays, there are absolutely no material changes required to the development plan or project itself. We are doing nothing wrong or illegal here!
I’d like to be clear, this group of neighbors who have formed the group “Friends of South Livermore” are not the typical dissenters. This group does not include Joan Seppala or Jean King. Please see the list above and reference City records noting that Jean King submitted a letter of support for this project back in 2019. Joan Seppala was on the original planning committee for the South Livermore Valley Specific Development Plan and endorses this beneficial project.

Rather, the residents hiding behind the “Friends of South Livermore” or “F.O.S.L.” group, consist of John Nunes, Donna Cabanne, Peter Young and Kendall Smith. This is a tiny fraction of the immediate neighborhood.

Following court mandated settlement attempts with this group, it is clear that NOTHING - no condition or concession - will EVER satisfy the F.O.S.L group. It is also clear that the unreasonable demands and complaints of the F.O.S.L. are completely unfounded, fear-based and a result of imagined circumstances of operating this small business over 300 yards away from their homes. They are not taking the well-being of the community into account, but rather trying to slow down the project for their own selfish motives until I give up or run out of funding. They are bullies and sore losers. They have verbally attacked me at the community meetings, harassed me online, and graffitied the signage on the project parcel multiple times. Who graffiti's property in their own neighborhood? The members of F.O.S.L. Their behavior speaks for itself.

The F.O.S.L. are at the end of their legal rope. They have lost, which is why I anticipate you will see them throwing a public temper tantrum at both the upcoming Planning Commission and City Council meetings where this issue is on the agenda (May 2 and May 22, 2023). The F.O.S.L. do not represent the Livermore community at large. The F.O.S.L. do not speak for a majority of the surrounding neighborhood. It’s time for us all to agree to disagree and move forward.

In conclusion, I thank you for taking the care and diligence to become familiar with the extensive history and background of this project. I thank you for your time to read through to the end of this statement. I urge you to approve the amendment before you specifying the 50 foot setback from Hansen Road, and re-entitle this well-thought out, responsibly developed project. 5 ATTACHMENT 12
862
This is a very beneficial project for our entire community that has been long desired and much needed. We all deserve to see it happen! Sincerely,
L. Michelle Boss
Founder, Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn
Managing Member, LWCI LLC
6 ATTACHMENT 12
863
Rodney Worth
The Worth Group, Chef & Owner
{925) 389-2176
[email protected]
https;//www.rodneyworth.com/
April 24, 2023
City of Livermore - Community Development Department
ATTN: Kam Purewal
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Re: Gas Appliance Exemption for New Construction Commercial Kitchen Dear Kam:

This letter is in regards to an exemption for the use of combustion equipment rather than electric in the planned commercial kitchen at the Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn project located at 3459 Arroyo Road, Livermore, CA 94550.

As a professional chef since 2003, and the Executive Chef/ Owner of the restaurant planned for the Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn, I am seeking an exemption to use gas appliances for the following critical reasons based on my experience, and for the success of this restaurant business:

1. Electric and induction tops have a serious lag time and make it difficult to regulate temperatures while cooking. Temperature regulation is essential for proper menu execution.

2. There is a massive supply chain shortage in the pot stock and equipment that is required for cooking on an electric or induction top.

Lack of inventory and the ability to replace equipment when needed is a serious operational concern that could severely and negatively impact our ability to serve our customers.
1 ATTACHMENT 13
864

3. Lastly and most importantly, electric and induction tops are approximately 10x more expensive to operate and maintain, as well as require different pots and pans which are also more expensive to purchase and maintain. The anticipated costs required with using the electric equipment is a serious detriment to cost controls, profitability and business viability.

This request is a business need which cannot be achieved equivalently with an electric heating appliance. Further, energy efficient equipment will be used throughout the business and property based on Energy Star or California Energy Wise qualifications, as available.

Thank you for the consideration of my request.

Sincerely,
Chef Rodney Worth
2 ATTACHMENT 13
865
Electric Kitchen Equipment Exemption
Final Audit Report
Created:

By:

Status:

Transaction ID:
2023-04-24
Michelle Boss ([email protected])
Signed
CBJCHBCAABMRrz8dm5VtZiUlrGTmFO1 Cr-h9JXugj9L
2023-04-24
"Electric Kitchen Equipment Exemption" History
f:l Document created by Michelle Boss ([email protected]) 2023-04-24 - 8:19:48 PM GMT- IP address: 73.223.34.140

12.. Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2023-04-24 - 8:20:35 PM GMT
f:l Email viewed by [email protected]
2023-04-24 - 8:20:37 PM GMT- IP address: 66.249.92.1
0o Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Rodney worth 2023-04-24 - 9:45:27 PM GMT- IP address: 73.223.201.198 0o Document e-signed by Rodney worth ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2023-04-24 - 9:45:29 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.223.201.198 G Agreement completed.
2023-04-24 - 9:45:29 PM GMT
Names and email addresses are entered into the Acrobat Sign service by Acrobat Sign users and are unverified unless otherwise noted.

Adobe Acrobat Sign
ATTACHMENT 13
866
Traffic Impact Study
Livermore Wine Country Inn
August 23, 2019
Livermore, CA
ATTACHMENT 14
867
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | i
Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary .........................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Intersection Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................7 Study Methodology......................................................................................................................... 7 Level of Service Methodology ......................................................................................................... 7 Significant Impact Criteria ............................................................................................................. 10 Existing Traffic Conditions......................................................................................................... 11 Roadway Network ......................................................................................................................... 11 Existing Peak Hour Volumes.......................................................................................................... 11 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions......................................................... 14 Existing plus Project Conditions................................................................................................. 15 Project Trip Generation................................................................................................................. 15 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment..................................................................................... 16 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions..................................... 16 Cumulative (2040) Conditions ................................................................................................... 20 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative No Project Conditions................................. 20 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions............................... 21 MultiͲmodal Impact Findings..................................................................................................... 25 Bicycle Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 25 Pedestrian Impacts........................................................................................................................ 25 Public Transit Impacts ................................................................................................................... 25 Site Plan Evaluation................................................................................................................... 26 Site Access Provisions.................................................................................................................... 26 Parking Supply Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 26 Impact Findings & Recommendations ....................................................................................... 28 ATTACHMENT 14
868
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | ii
Tables
Table 1: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections.........................................................8 Table 2: Level of Service Definitions for StopͲcontrolled Intersections................................................9 Table 3: Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions..............................................14 Table 4: Project Trip Generation Forecast .......................................................................................... 15 Table 5: Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Existing plus Project Conditions..........................17 Table 6: Peak Hour Queues – Existing plus Project Conditions...........................................................17 Table 7: Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative 2040 (No Project) Conditions..........20 Table 8: Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative 2040 plus Project Conditions...........21 Table 9: Peak Hour Queues – Cumulative 2040 plus Project Conditions............................................22 Table 10: Shared Parking Demand by Time of Day ............................................................................. 27 Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map............................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2b: Proposed Overflow Parking Provisions................................................................................ 5 Figure 3: Study Intersections................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4: Existing Lane Geometries and Traffic Controls ....................................................................12 Figure 5: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................................................................................... 13 Figure 6: Project Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment.....................................................................18 Figure 7: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................19 Figure 8: Cumulative No Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..............................................................23 Figure 9: Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................................................24 List of Appendices
Appendix A – Project Plan Set
Appendix B – Intersection Count Data
Appendix C – Level of Service Results
Appendix D – Queuing Reports for Signalized Intersection ATTACHMENT 14
869
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 1 Introduction and Summary
Introduction
This report presents the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) conducted for the proposed Livermore Wine Country Inn in Livermore, CA.The purpose of this report is to provide results of transportation impacts to the surrounding transportation system. To evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project, study intersections were evaluated in accordance with the standardsset forth by the transportation impact analysis requirements of the City of Livermore.
The project location is at the southwest corner of Hansen Road and Arroyo Road in Livermore, as shown on Figure 1. The project site is an agricultural parcel located adjacent to the southwest corner of Hansen Road and Arroyo Road.A bicycle and pedestrian path separates the project site from Arroyo Road.

The proposed project would develop the parcel with a 30Ͳroom bed & breakfast and a 2,000 square foot restaurant, and a 2Ͳstory 2,400Ͳsquare foot 3Ͳbedroom/2 bath caretakers' residence. As proposed, site access for all travel modes would be provided from Hansen Road (west of the intersection with Arroyo Road).Internal circulation would be provided by a UͲshaped internal drive aisle that would provide vehicle access to dropͲoff areas and parking spaces.A sidewalk would be constructed adjacent to the south side of Hanson Road that would connect with the bicycle and pedestrian path on the west side of Arroyo Road. A pedestrian path adjacent to the driveway would connect the sidewalk with an internal pedestrian path to/from building entrances.The existing median on Hansen Road would be modified to accommodate inbound leftͲturns to the project driveway.
The preliminary proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2, and the preliminary site plan set of architectural drawings in provided in Appendix A.
The project would provide 12 bicycle parking spaces and up to 80 onͲsite motor vehicle parking spaces to include:
x 61 paved onͲsite motor vehicle parking spaces.
x 19 additional unpaved, onͲsite motor vehicle parking spaces would be provided within an overflow parking area, near the emergency vehicle access (EVA) turnaround on the east side of the site.The proposed overflow parking area is shown on Figure 2a. Summary
The proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of 14 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour (6 inbound and 8 outbound) and 37 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour (24 inbound and 13 outbound). TJKM evaluated peakͲhour traffic operations at five study intersections.Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, based on City standards. Under Project Conditions, with the addition of projectͲgenerated traffic in addition to traffic that would be generated by future traffic growth in the vicinity, all study intersections are expected to continue operating at acceptable levels of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with minor changes in average delay, and without resulting in leftͲturn queues exceeding storage capacity.Therefore, traffic impacts are less than significant and no mitigations are required.
ATTACHMENT 14
870
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 2 The project is proposing to modify the median on Hansen Road at the project entrance and construct a new sidewalk on the south side of Hansen Road.The proposed project entrance is expected to adequately accommodate ingress and egress for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and the proposed supply of 80 onͲsite parking spaces would accommodate peak demand. ATTACHMENT 14
871
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
089-381
N
HolmesSt.

Wetmore Rd.Concannon Blvd.

H
o
l
m
e
s
St
.

Vallecitos Rd. Hansen Rd.

Ar
r
oyo Rd. Ar
r
oyo Rd.

Talinga Dr.

Lusi
t
ana D
r.

C
e
l ars Dr. l
Santorina Dr.

L
agiss
Dr.

B
e
rtolli
Ct
.

Ve
r
dala Dr.

Pic
h
o
line Dr.

Vineyard Ave.

LEGEND
Bike PathProject Site
ATTACHMENT 14
872
Figure 2: Site Plan
089-381
N
ATTACHMENT 14
873
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 5 Figure 2b: Proposed Overflow Parking Provisions
ATTACHMENT 14
874
Figure 3: Study Intersections
089-381
N
Holmes St.

Wetmore Rd.Concannon Blvd.

H
o
l
m
e
s
St
.

Vallecitos Rd. Hansen Rd.

Ar
roy
o Rd. Ar
roy
o Rd.

Talinga D
r.

Lu
s
i
t
a
n
a Dr.

C
e
l ars Dr. l
Santorina Dr.

L
agiss Dr.

B
e
rtolli
Ct
.

VerdalaD
r.

Picholin
e Dr.

Vineyard Ave.

LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Bike Path
Project Site
4 3 2
5 1
ATTACHMENT 14
875
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 7 Intersection Analysis Methodology
Study Methodology
The assessment of potential traffic impacts is based on a comparison of a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions under the following four scenarios:

1. Existing Conditions: This scenario assess the existing bicycle, motor vehicle and pedestrian circulation conditions, and describe existing transit service within walking distance of the site.

2. Existing plus Project Conditions: This scenario evaluates potential impacts of the project trips to the surrounding transportation network, as well as potential transportation impacts that could result from proposed physical improvements under the proposed project.

3. Cumulative (2040) No Project conditions: In this scenario, an annual growth rate of two percent is applied to the existing conditions without adding project generated trips.

4. Cumulative (2040) plus project conditions: Under this scenario, potential impacts will based on the addition of project trips to the surrounding transportation network, as well as potential transportation impacts that could result from proposed physical improvements under the proposed project.

The following five study intersections were selected based on the project location, local travel patterns, and review by City staff:

1. Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd

2. Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd

3. Talinga Dr & Wetmore Rd

4. Vallecitos RdͲHolmes St & Wetmore Rd

5. Hansen Rd & Project Driveway
The location of each study intersection is shown on Figure 3.

Level of Service Methodology
Traffic impacts on the study intersections were quantified through the determination of level of service (LOS), a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream. There are six levels of service defined for each type of facility (i.e., roadway or intersection) analyzed. LOS has letter designations ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing free flow traffic with little or no delay and LOS F representing jammed conditions with excessive delay and long backͲups.

Procedures for analyzing each type of facility are based on the Highway Capacity Manual. The HCM methods for calculating LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections are described below.
ATTACHMENT 14
876
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 8 Signalized Intersections
Traffic operations at signalized intersections is based on the weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue moveͲup time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between the control delay and LOS for signalized intersections.

Table 1: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections Level of
Service Description
A
Very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values.

B
Control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. There is good progression or short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop causing higher levels of delay.

C
Control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. Higher delays are caused by fair progression or longer cycle lengths or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflow occurs. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

D
Control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestions becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes.

Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E
Control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. The limit of acceptable delay. High delays usually indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent.

F
Control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Unacceptable to most drivers. Oversaturation, arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual

ATTACHMENT 14
877
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 9 Unsignalized Intersections
The LOS for unsignalized intersections (sideͲstreet or allͲway stop controlled intersections) is also defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). The control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For sideͲstreet stopͲcontrolled intersections, delay is calculated for each stopͲcontrolled movement and for the uncontrolled left turns, if any, from the main street. The delay and LOS for the intersection as a whole and for the worst movement are reported for sideͲstreet stop intersections. The intersection average delay is reported for allͲway stop intersections. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. The delay ranges for unsignalized intersections are lower than for signalized intersections as drivers expect less delay at unsignalized intersections.

Table 2: Level of Service Definitions for StopͲcontrolled Intersections Level of
Service Description
A Very low control delay less than 10 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

B
Low control delay greater than 10 and up to 15 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

C Acceptable control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

D
Tolerable control delay greater than 25 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

E
Limit of tolerable control delay greater than 35 and up to 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

F Unacceptable control delay in excess of 50 seconds per vehicle for each movement subject to delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual
Each of the study intersections were analyzed using Synchro Version 10 software and HCM 6th Edition methodology.The LOS assessment under all scenarios is based on current traffic controls and signal timing.Signal timing sheets were provided by the City of Livermore for the signalized study intersection of Vallecitos Road/Holmes Street and Wetmore Road. ATTACHMENT 14
878
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 10 Significant Impact Criteria
According to the City’s adopted 2004 General Plan (Circulation element, amended 2014), the intersection LOS standard for signalized intersections is mid-level D (up to 45 seconds of average vehicle delay), except in the Downtown Area and near freeway interchanges where LOS E is acceptable. The intersection standard for all-way stop-controlled intersections is mid-level E (up to 45 seconds of average vehicle delay). The intersection standard for one-way or two-way stopcontrolled intersections is up to 90 seconds of average delay for the critical movement.

A signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersection already operating at an unacceptable LOS would experience a significant impact if the addition of project traffic would increase average delay by five seconds or more, and project traffic increases the overall v/c value by 0.03 or more, or increases the critical v/c value by 0.05 or more. A one-way or side-street stop-controlled intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS would experience a significant impact if the project increases the critical v/c value by 0.05 or more.

City staff indicated that the City of Livermore has no adopted impact criteria for determining the significance of impacts to bicycle, pedestrian or transit circulation. Therefore, as directed by City staff, such impacts will be assessed based on standard CEQA checklist criteria that identifies impacts as potentially significant if a project disrupts existing or planned bicycle, pedestrian or transit facilities, or conflicts with an adopted policy, plan or program supporting alternative transportion.

ATTACHMENT 14
879
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 11 Existing Traffic Conditions
This section describes the existing conditions in the project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, existing traffic volumes and operations are presented for study intersections, including the results of LOS calculations.

Roadway Network
Major local roadway facilities providing access to the proposed development are discussed below.

Arroyo Road is a northͲsouth collector street and special rural route that provides regional access to Lake Del Valle and other rural areas in the Alameda County. Within the City of Livermore, this road turns into L Street moving further north. Adjacent to the project site, a right and left turn lane pockets are provided in both directions while approaching Hansen Road.Near the project site, the road also provides an adjacent bike/pedestrian path.The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph).

Vallecitos Road/Holmes Street is a major street that merges First Street in the north and State Route – 84 in the South. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph) and has adjacent bike lanes in both the direction.
Wetmore Road similar to the Arroyo Road is a collector street and special rural route, which connects Major Street Vallecitos Road and Arroyo Road. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph).

Hansen Road is a local street with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). This road provides a buffered sidewalk for the westbound traffic. Talinga Drive is a local street with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph).

Existing Peak Hour Volumes
TJKM evaluated existing traffic conditions at selected study intersections during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour on a typical weekday.Intersection turning movement counts of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians were collected during the a.m. peak period (7:00Ͳ9:00 a.m.) and p.m. peak period (4:00Ͳ6:00 p.m.) on Tuesday, March 26, 2019.Detailed data sheets showing the results of the intersection counts are provided in Appendix B.

The existing motor vehicle turning movement volumes, lane geometry, and traffic controls at each study intersections are illustrated on Figure 4.

ATTACHMENT 14
880
Figure 4: Existing Lane Geometries & Traffic Controls
N
089-381
Intersection #1
Arroyo Rd. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #2
Arroyo Rd. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #3
Talinga Dr. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #5
Project Dwy. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #4
Vallecitos Rd. & Holmes St.
/ Wetmore Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

Talinga Dr.

Hansen Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

STOP
STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
Proposed Dwy.

Holmes St. Vallecitos Rd.

Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
STOP
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Bike Path
Project Site
Holmes St.

Wetmore Rd.

Concannon Blvd.

Holmes St.

Vallecitos Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd. Arroyo Rd.

Talinga Dr.

Lusitana Dr.

Cellars Dr.

Santorina Dr.

Lagiss Dr.

Bertolli Ct.

Verdala Dr.

Picholine Dr.

Vineyard Ave.
4 3 2
5 1
ATTACHMENT 14
881
Figure 5: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
N
089-381
Intersection #1
Arroyo Rd. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #2
Arroyo Rd. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #3
Talinga Dr. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #5
Project Dwy. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #4
Vallecitos Rd. & Holmes St.
/ Wetmore Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd. 13 (12) 1 (0)
Talinga Dr.
0 (0)
213 (148)
0 (16)
143 (368)
38 (21)
0 (1)
2 (0)
1 (0)
94 (446)
3 (16)
1 (1)
5 (3)
21 (22)282 (99)24 (21)
48 (28)
63 (346)
75 (20)
5 (73)
10 (109)
208 (68)122 (30)
40 (22)
23 (23)
Wetmore Rd.
495 (309)31 (30)
56 (23)
218 (133)
278 (724)134 (370)
Hansen Rd.

Proposed Dwy.

Holmes St. Vallecitos Rd.

LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Bike Path
Project Site
AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
XX
(XX)
Holmes St.

Wetmore Rd.

Concannon Blvd.

Holmes St.

Vallecitos Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd. Arroyo Rd.

Talinga Dr.

Lusitana Dr.

Cellars Dr.

Santorina Dr.

Lagiss Dr.

Bertolli Ct.

Verdala Dr.

Picholine Dr.

Vineyard Ave.
4 3 2
5 1
ATTACHMENT 14
882
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 14 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections are operating acceptably based on City of Livermore standards during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.Average delay does not exceed midͲlevel C at any study intersections.Motorists experience the longest delay during both peak hours at the intersection of Vallecitos Road/Holmes Street and Wetmore Road.

The existing peak hour LOS at each study intersection under Existing Conditions is shown on Table

3.LOS calculations are provided in Appendix B.
Table 3: Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions Notes: 1. LOS = Level of Service;

2. Average intersection delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections and allͲway stop controlled intersections. Average control delay for the worst approach is presented forsideͲstreetstop controlled intersections.

Bold indicates intersectionsthat operate at a deficient Level of Service.

ID Intersection Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Average
Delay LOS
Average
Delay LOS
1 Arroyo Road & Hansen
Road SideͲstreet Stop 15.1 C 17.8 C
2 Arroyo Road &
Wetmore Road AllͲway Stop 8.6 A 12.4 B
3 Talinga Drive &
Wetmore Road SideͲstreet Stop 9.6 A 9.3 A
4 Vallecitos RoadͲHolmes
Street & Wetmore
Rd
Signal 22.6 C 15.1 B
5 Hansen Road &
Project Driveway SideͲstreet Stop N/A N/A N/A N/A
ATTACHMENT 14
883
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 15 Existing plus Project Conditions
This scenario provides as assessment of the potential impacts of the additional project trips to the surrounding transportation network, as well as potential transportation impacts that could result from proposed physical improvements under the proposed project.

Project Trip Generation
TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the ITE publication Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). To provide a conservative assessment, trip generation for the restaurant was based on a restaurant with up to 90 seats, exceeding the proposed provision of 77 seats identified in the proposed site plan.

Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation data the project is forecasted to generate 14 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour, 37 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour and 344 daily vehicle trips. The trip generation forecast is summarized on Table 4. Table 4: Project Trip Generation Forecast
Land Use
ITE Land
Use
Category
Size
(Unit)
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
(ITE Code) Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Bed and
Breakfast Motel (320) 30(Rooms) 3.35 101 0.38 4 7 11 0.38 6 5 11 Restaurant
Quality
Restaurant
(931)
90 (Seats) 2.6 234 0.02 2 0 2 0.28 17 8 25
Caretakers
Residence
Single
Family
Housing
(210)
1 (Dwelling
Units)

9.44 9 0.74 0 1 1 0.9 1 0 1
Total Vehicle Trips 344 6 8 14 24 13 37
Rate Source:ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, ATTACHMENT 14
884
August 2019 Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 16 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution is a process that determines in what proportion vehicles would travel between a project site and various destinations outside the project study area.The process of trip assignment determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the calculated trip distribution.

TJKM developed trip distribution percentages for project traffic based on review of prior studies and knowledge of the study area.The distribution assumptions are as follows:
x 15 percent via Vineyard Avenue
x 15 percent via Vallecitos Avenue (south of Vineyard Avenue) x 5 percent via Arroyo Road (southof Wetmore Rd)
x 55 percent via Arroyo Road (north of the project site) x 10 percent via Holmes Street (north of Wetmore Rd)
The project trips were assigned to the study area roadway network based on the above trip distribution assumptions. The trip distribution assumptions and the resulting net increase in trips assigned to the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 6.The resulting turning movement volumes at each study intersection, with the addition of project trips, are shown on Figure 7. Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing plus Project Conditions The peak hour LOS at each study intersection under Project Conditions is shown on Table 5.LOS calculations are provided in Appendix B.

With the addition of trips generated by the proposed project, each of the study intersections will continue to operate at the same LOS as under Existing Conditions, and will continue operating acceptably based on City of Livermore LOS D/E standards during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Average vehicle delay is not expected to exceed midͲlevel D at any study intersection.Average delay would increase by less than oneͲhalf second at each study intersection.As shown on Table 6:
95th percentile queue lengths would not exceed capacities at any existing study intersections (while accommodation for inbound leftͲturns to the project driveway will also be adequate as described later in this reportŽŶƉĂŐĞϮϴ).Project impacts under Existing plus Project conditions would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 14
885
August 2019 Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 17 Table 5: Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Existing plus Project Conditions Notes: 1. LOS = Level of Service;

Bold indicates intersectionsthat operate at a deficient Level of Service.

Table 6: Peak Hour Queues – Existing plus Project Conditions ID # Intersection Turn Pocket
Movement
Stacking
Capacity
(feet)
95th Percentile Queue Length in Feet
ExistingConditions Existing plusProject
Conditions
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Arroyo Road &
Hansen Road
Northbound Arroyo Rd.
LeftͲturn
150 0 0 0 <20
Southbound Arroyo Rd.
LeftͲturn
130 <20 <20 <20 <20
2 Arroyo Road &
Wetmore Road
SouthboundArroyo Rd.

RightͲturn 185 20 <20 20 <20
4 Vallecitos Rd/
Homes Street &
Wetmore Road
Westbound Holmes St
LeftͲturn
360 230 95 230 95
Northbound Wetmore Rd.

LeftͲturn
90 55 35 55 40
5 Hanson Road &
Project
Driveway
Westbound Hansen Rd.

LeftͲturn N/A N/A N/A 0 <20
Notes: Queue length rounded to nearest 5 feet
ID Intersection Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Average
Delay LOS
Average
Delay LOS
1 Arroyo Road & Hansen
Road SideͲstreet Stop 15.ϭ C 17.4 C
2 Arroyo Road & Wetmore
Road AllͲway Stop 8.6 A 12.7 B
3 Talinga Drive &
Wetmore Road SideͲstreet Stop 9.6 A 9.3 A
4 Vallecitos RoadͲHolmes
Street & Wetmore Road Signal 22.7 C 15.3 B
5 Hansen Road &
Project Driveway SideͲstreet Stop 8.6 A 8.5 A
ATTACHMENT 14
886
Figure 6: Project Trip Distribution & Assignment
N
089-381
Intersection #1
Arroyo Rd. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #2
Arroyo Rd. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #3
Talinga Dr. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #5
Project Dwy. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #4
Vallecitos Rd. & Holmes St.
/ Wetmore Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

Talinga Dr.
1 (0)
2 (5)
0 (1)
2 (9) 4 (7)
3 (6)
2 (10)
4 (13)
0 (1)
2 (9)
0 (1)
2 (5)1 (1)
1 (0)
7 (13)
Wetmore Rd.

Holmes St. Vallecitos Rd.
0 (2)
1 (2)
2 (3)
2 (8)
Hansen Rd.

Proposed Dwy.
6 (23)
55%
5%
10%
15%
15%
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Bike Path
Project Site
AM Peak Hour Project Trips
PM Peak Hour Project Trips
XX
(XX)
XX% Trip Distributions (%)
Bertolli Ct.

Holmes St.

Wetmore Rd.

Concannon Blvd.

Holmes St.

Vallecitos Rd.

Hansen Rd.

ArroyoRd. Arroyo Rd.

Talinga Dr.

Lusitana Dr.

Cellars Dr.

Santorina Dr.

Lagiss Dr.

PicholineDr.

Vineyard Ave.
4 3 2
5 1 Verda al Dr.

ATTACHMENT 14
887
Figure 7: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N
089-381
Intersection #1
Arroyo Rd. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #2
Arroyo Rd. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #3
Talinga Dr. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #5
Project Dwy. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #4
Vallecitos Rd. & Holmes St.
/ Wetmore Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd. 14 (12) 1 (0)
Talinga Dr.
0 (0)
215 (153)
0 (17)
145 (377)
4 (28)
0 (1)
5 (6)
3 (10)
94 (446)
3 (16)
1 (1)
5 (3)
28 48 (28)
(99)
224 (21)
(35)
6 (35)
75 (20)
5 (73)
10 (110)
12 (31)21 (73)
40 (22)
0 (1)
1 (0)
7 (13)
23 (23)
6 (23)
Wetmore Rd.
495 (309)31 (32)
57 (25)
220 (136)
278 (724)136 (378)
Hansen Rd.

Proposed Dwy.

Holmes St. Vallecitos Rd.

LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Bike Path
Project Site
AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
XX
(XX)
Holmes St.

Wetmore Rd.

Concannon Blvd.

Holmes St.

Vallecitos Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd. Arroyo Rd.

Talinga Dr.

Lusitana Dr.

Cellars Dr.

Santorina Dr.

Lagiss Dr.

Bertolli Ct.

Verdala Dr.

Picholine Dr.

Vineyard Ave.
4 3 2
5 1
ATTACHMENT 14
888
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 20 Cumulative (2040) Conditions
This scenario provides an assessment of traffic conditions by applying a two percent nonͲ compounded annual growth rate to the 2019 counts (thus 42 percent growth), as directed by the city. The Cumulative No Project assessment will describe the Cumulative Baseline LOS for motor vehicle traffic at each of the study intersections. The resulting turning movement volumes at each study intersection under Cumulative (2040) No Project Conditions is shown on Figure 8. Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative No Project Conditions The peak hour LOS at each study intersection under Cumulative No Project Conditions is shown on Table 7.LOS calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Under Cumulative No Project Conditions, all study intersections will continue operating acceptably based on City of Livermore LOS standards during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Table 7: Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative 2040 (No Project) Conditions Notes: 1. LOS = Level of Service;

2. Average intersection delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections and all way stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst approach is presented for sideͲstreet stop controlled intersections.

Bold indicates intersections that operate at a deficient Level of Service. ID Intersection Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Average
Delay2 LOS1 AverageDelay2 LOS1
1 Arroyo Road & Hansen
Road SideͲstreet Stop 21.5 C 30.9 D
2 Arroyo Road &
Wetmore Road AllͲway Stop 10.1 B 26.4 D
3 Talinga Drive &
Wetmore Road SideͲstreet Stop 10.7 B 9.8 A
4 Vallecitos RoadͲHolmes
Street & Wetmore
Road Signal 29.8 C 23.0 C
5 Hansen Road &
Project Driveway SideͲstreet Stop N/A N/A N/A N/A
ATTACHMENT 14
889
August 2019 Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 21 Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative plus Project Conditions The peak hour LOS at each study intersection under Cumulative 2040 plus Project Conditions is shown on Table 8.LOS calculations are provided in Appendix C.

With the addition of trips generated by the proposed project, each of the study intersections will continue to operate at the same LOS as under Cumulative (No Project) Conditions, and will continue operating acceptably based on City of Livermore LOS standards during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
Average delay would increase by less than two seconds at each study intersection.As shown on Table 9: 95th percentile queue lengths would not exceed capacities at any existing study intersections (while accommodation for inbound leftͲturns to the project driveway are discussed on pages 26 and 28).Project impacts under Cumulative plus Project conditions would be less than significant.
Table 8: Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative 2040 plus Project Conditions Notes: 1. LOS = Level of Service;

Bold indicates intersections that operate at a deficient Level of Service.

ID Intersection Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Average
Delay2 LOS1 AverageDelay2 LOS1
1 Arroyo Road & Hansen
Road SideͲstreet Stop 22.ϭ C 31.5 D
2 Arroyo Road &
Wetmore Road AllͲway Stop 10.1 B 28.1 D
3 Talinga Drive &
Wetmore Road SideͲstreet Stop 10.7 B 9.8 A
4 Vallecitos RoadͲHolmes
Street & Wetmore
Road Signal 30.3 C 23.5 C
5 Hansen Road &
Project Driveway SideͲstreet Stop 8.7 A 8.5 A
ATTACHMENT 14
890
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 22 Table 9: Peak Hour Queues – Cumulative 2040 plus Project Conditions ID # Intersection Turn Pocket
Movement
Stacking
Capacity
(feet)
95th Percentile Queue Length in Feet
Cumulative NoProject
Conditions
Cumulative plusProject
Conditions
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 Arroyo Road &
Hansen Road
Northbound Arroyo Rd.
LeftͲturn
150 0 0 0 <20
Southbound Arroyo Rd.
LeftͲturn
130 <20 <20 <20 <20
2 Arroyo Road &
Wetmore Road
SouthboundArroyo Rd.

RightͲturn 185 40 <20 45 <20
4 Vallecitos Rd/
Homes Street &
Wetmore Road
Westbound Holmes St
LeftͲturn
360 255 130 260 135
Northbound Wetmore Rd.

LeftͲturn
90 45 45 45 50
5 Hanson Road &
Project
Driveway
Westbound Hansen Rd.

LeftͲturn N/A N/A N/A 0 <20
Notes: Queue length rounded to nearest 5 feet
ATTACHMENT 14
891
Figure 8: Cumulative No Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N
089-381
Intersection #1
Arroyo Rd. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #2
Arroyo Rd. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #3
Talinga Dr. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #5
Project Dwy. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #4
Vallecitos Rd. & Holmes St.
/ Wetmore Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd. 18 (17) 1 (0)
Talinga Dr.
0 (0)
302 (210)
0 (23)
203 (523)
54 (30)
()
() ()
133 (633)
() 1 (1)
7 (4)
30 (31)400 (141)34 (30)
68 (40)
89 (491)
107 (28)
7 (104)
14 (155)
295 (97)173 (43)
()
33 (33)
Wetmore Rd.
703 (439)44 (43)
80 (33)
310 (189)
395 (1,028)
190 (525)
Hansen Rd.

Proposed Dwy.

Holmes St. Vallecitos Rd.

LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Bike Path
Project Site
AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
XX
(XX)
Holmes St.

Wetmore Rd.

Concannon Blvd.

Holmes St.

Vallecitos Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd. Arroyo Rd.

Talinga Dr.

Lusitana Dr.

Cellars Dr.

Santorina Dr.

Lagiss Dr.

Bertolli Ct.

Verdala Dr.

Picholine Dr.

Vineyard Ave.
4 3 2
5 1
ATTACHMENT 14
892
Figure 9: Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N
089-381
Intersection #1
Arroyo Rd. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #2
Arroyo Rd. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #3
Talinga Dr. / Wetmore Rd.

Intersection #5
Project Dwy. / Hansen Rd.

Intersection #4
Vallecitos Rd. & Holmes St.
/ Wetmore Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd.

Arroyo Rd.

Wetmore Rd. 19 (17) 1 (0)
Talinga Dr.
0 (0)
304 (215)
0 (24)
205 (532)
58 (37)
0 (1)
6 (6)
3 ()
133 (633)
4 (23)
1 (1)
7 (4)
40 68 (40)
(141)
334 (30)
(44)
91 (500)
107 (28)
7 (104)
14 (156)
17 (44)29 (102)
57 (31)
0 (1)
1 (0)
7 (13)
33 (33)
6 (23)
Wetmore Rd.
703 (439)44 (45)
81 (35)
312 (192)
395 (1,028)
192 (533)
Hansen Rd.

Proposed Dwy.

Holmes St. Vallecitos Rd.

LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Bike Path
Project Site
AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
XX
(XX)
Holmes St.

Wetmore Rd.

Concannon Blvd.

Holmes St.

Vallecitos Rd.

Hansen Rd.

Arroyo Rd. Arroyo Rd.

Talinga Dr.

Lusitana Dr.

Cellars Dr.

Santorina Dr.

Lagiss Dr.

Bertolli Ct.

Verdala Dr.

Picholine Dr.

Vineyard Ave.
4 3 2
5 1
ATTACHMENT 14
893
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 25 MultiͲmodal Impact Findings
Bicycle Impacts
A significant impact to bicycle transportation would potentially occur if the proposed project disrupt existing bicycle facilities; or conflict or create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies or standards of the City of Livermore.Planned bicycle facilities in Livermore are identified in the Livermore Active Transportation Plan.

A bicycle and pedestrian path separates the project site from Arroyo Road.As proposed, site access for all travel modes including bicyclists would be provided from Hansen Road, west of the intersection with Arroyo Road.Bicyclists would enter and exit the site via Hansen Road and the project driveway, which would adequately accommodate shared motor vehicle and bicycle travel. The project would provide 12 onͲsite bicycle parking spaces.

The project does not conflict with existing or planned bicycle facilities. Therefore, the impact to bicycle transportation is lessͲthanͲsignificant.

Pedestrian Impacts
A significant impact to pedestrians would potentially occur if the proposed project disrupts existing pedestrian facilities or create inconsistencies with planned pedestrian facilities or the City of Livermore’s adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies or standards. A bicycle and pedestrian path separates the project site from Arroyo Road, and an existing sidewalk is provided on the north side of Hanson Road that connects with residential parcels to the west.As proposed, site access for all travel modes would be provided from Hansen Road (west of the intersection with Arroyo Road).
A new sidewalk would be constructed adjacent to the south side of Hanson Road that would connect with the bicycle and pedestrian path on the west side of Arroyo Road. A pedestrian path adjacent to the driveway would connect the sidewalk with an internal pedestrian path to/from building entrances.
The proposed project will have adequate pedestrian access to the project site from the surrounding area. The proposed project will not result in significant impacts to existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project. The proposed project does not conflict with existing or planned pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is lessͲthanͲ significant.

Public Transit Impacts
A significant impact to public transit would potentially occur if the proposed project disrupt existing transit facilities; or conflict or create inconsistencies with adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies or standards of the City of Livermore.Public transit within Livermore is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAFTA) also known as Wheels. There is no bus service provided on Arroyo Road or Hansen Road.
The proposed project does not conflict with existing or planned transit service. Therefore, the project would have a lessͲthanͲsignificant impact to public transit.

ATTACHMENT 14
894
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 26 Site Plan Evaluation
Site Access Provisions
As proposed, site access for all travel modes would be provided from Hansen Road (west of the intersection with Arroyo Road).Internal circulation would be provided by a UͲshaped internal drive aisle that would provide vehicle access to dropͲoff areas and parking spaces.A pedestrian path adjacent to the driveway would connect with an internal pedestrian path to/from building The 95th percentile leftͲturn queue, for vehicles entering the site, would not exceed one car length.

With the proposed leftͲturn provisions entering the site: the proposed project entrances are expected to adequately accommodate ingress and egress for motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, and provide adequate approaching sight distance.
Parking Supply Evaluation
The project would provide up to 80 onͲsite parking spaces to include:
x 61 paved onͲsite motor vehicle parking spaces.
x 19 additional unpaved, onͲsite parking spaces would be provided within an overflow parking area, near the emergency vehicle access (EVA) turnaround on the east side of the site.The proposed overflow parking area is shown on Figure 2a. Based on parking demand data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), TJKM predicted the total parking demand generated by each of the proposed uses by time of day, as shown on Table 10.As shown:
x Peak parking demand would coincide with the evening dinner period at the proposed restaurant, during which time parking demand would peak with up to 63 vehicles parked onͲsite at 8 p.m. on weekdays, and 58 vehicles parked onͲsite at 8 p.m. on weekends.To provide a conservative assessment: parking demand for the proposed restaurant was estimated based on a 90Ͳseat restaurant (exceeding the proposed provision of 77 seats indicated on the most recent site plan).
x During all other time periods: the predicted onͲsite parking demand would be 50 vehicles or less.
x Based on this analysis: the proposed provision of 80 onͲsite motor vehicle parking spaces (including 61 paved parking spaces and 19 unpaved, overflow spaces) will be adequate to accommodate peak parking demand.Use of the overflow spaces would be limited to the peak dinner period at 8 p.m. on weeknights.The peak parking demand estimate is conservative, in presuming that the restaurant and bed & breakfast would each generate separate parking demand (but actual demand should be reduced given the likelihood that a portion of restaurant customers will also be guests of the bedͲandͲbreakfast, thus reducing the total number of vehicles onͲsite.
ATTACHMENT 14
895
ƵŐƵƐƚ2019 Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 27
Table 10: Shared Parking Demand by Time of Day
Bed & Breakfast Quality Restaurant Residence Total Vehicles Time of Day
Percent of Daily Peak Parking Demand
Weekday Weekend
Percent of Daily Peak Parking Demand
Weekday Weekend
Percent of Weekday Peak Parking Demand
Weekday
Percent of Saturday Peak Parking Demand
Weekend Weekday Weekend
9:00
AM 100% 22 22 0% 0 0 45% 1 56% 1 23 23
12:00
PM 86% 19 19 51% 24 21 36% 1 56% 1 44 41
6:00
PM 73% 16 16 71% 33 29 66% 1 81% 1 50 46
8:00
PM 80% 17 17 97% 45 40 77% 1 61% 1 63 58
10:00
PM 94% 20 20 0% 0 0 92% 2 75% 1 22 21
Source: TJKM, based on ITE Parking Generation Manual (2019).

ATTACHMENT 14
896
August 2019Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS Page | 28 Impact Findings & Recommendations
TJKM has reached the following conclusions with respect to the proposed project:
x The 95th percentile leftͲturn queue, for vehicles entering the site, would not exceed one car length.As described earlier in this report and shown on the site plan: the existing median on Hansen Road would be modified to accommodate inbound leftͲturns and would provide more than adequate storage space to accommodate the anticipated queue length. x The proposed project entrances are expected to adequately accommodate ingress and egress for motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, and provide adequate approaching sight distance.
x The proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of 14 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour (6 inbound and 8 outbound) and 37 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour (24 inbound and 13 outbound), and 344 daily vehicle rips. x Impacts to study intersections are lessͲthanͲsignificant and no mitigations are required. o Under Existing plus Project Conditions, with the addition of traffic generated by proposed project, all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, based on City standards of LOS D/E or better.Average delay would increase by less than oneͲhalf second at each study intersection.
o Under Cumulative (2040) plus Project Conditions, with the addition of projectͲ generated traffic in addition to background traffic growth that would be generated by upcoming projects in the vicinity, all study intersections are expected to continue operating at acceptable levels of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with minor changes in average delay.Average delay would increase by less than two seconds at each study intersection.
x The proposed project does not create a significant impact to the expected leftͲturn or rightͲ turn queues at the study intersections. The project driveways are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS and the 95th percentile queueing at the outbound approach of project driveway is expected to be minimal.
x The proposed project would include provision of a sidewalk on the south side of Hansen Drive, and does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities, and is not expected to generate transit demand in excess of the existing transit capacity.

Therefore, the impact to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities is lessͲthanͲsignificant and no mitigations are required.
x The proposed provision of 80 onͲsite motor vehicle parking spaces (61 paved parking spaces and 19 unpaved, overflow spaces) will be adequate to accommodate peak parking demand.Peak parking demand would coincide with the evening dinner period at the proposed restaurant, during which time parking demand would peak with up to 63 vehicles parked onͲsite at 8 p.m. on weekdays, and 58 vehicles parked onͲsite at 8 p.m. on weekends.The peak parking demand estimate is conservative, in presuming that the restaurant and bed & breakfast would each generate separate parking demand (but actual demand should be reduced given the likelihood that a portion of restaurant customers will also be guests of the bedͲandͲbreakfast, thus reducing the total number of vehicles onͲsite. During all other time periods: the predicted parking demand would be 50 vehicles or less.

ATTACHMENT 14
897
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS
Appendix A – Project Plan Set
ATTACHMENT 14
898
ATTACHMENT 14
899
ATTACHMENT 14
900
Sidewalk at Hansen Road
LARPD Trail
ATTACHMENT 14
901
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS
Appendix B – Intersection Count Data

ATTACHMENT 14
902
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 2
0 0
2 3
3 10
20 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 5
0 2
Peak Hour 0 0 1 4 5 0 0
Count Total 0 0 2 7 9 0 0 0 1 1 5 13
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 8 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 1
0 8:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0
0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2
0 0 0
HV% - 0% - 0% - - 0% 1%
0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 0
0 2 0 5 1 48 0 1 94 3 0 24 282
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 10% 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 38 0
76 0 1 177 8 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 5 0
21 519 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 61 0 2 0 11 1 38 561 37 973 0
0 2 0 8 0 0 23 2 0 6 57 6 112 470
4 65 4 108 480
8:45 AM 0 8 0 0
5 0 0 24 1 0
134 519
8:30 AM 0 4 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 13 0 0 29 0 0 10 68 5
7 48 4 116 505
8:15 AM 0 8 0 0
11 0 0 33 1 0
122 503
8:00 AM 0 11 0 0 0 1 0
0 2 0 9 0 0 13 2 0 5 77 6
2 89 6 147 0
7:45 AM 0 7 0 1
15 0 1 19 0 0
120 0
7:30 AM 0 12 0 1 0 2 0
0 2 0 10 0 0 18 1 0 2 77 2
2 80 4 114 0
7:15 AM 0 8 0 0
7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 18 1 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Hansen Rd Hansen Rd Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 03-26-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 1.2% 0.84
TOTAL 1.0% 0.88
TH RT
WB 0.0% 0.79
NB 1.0% 0.72
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.0% 0.77
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
0 1
4 0
N
Arroyo Rd
Hansen Rd
Hansen Rd
Arroyo Rd
Hansen Rd
Arroyo Rd
TEV: 519
PHF: 0.88
21 282
24 327
180
0 48
1 5
54 27
0 3
94 1
289
98 0
2 0
38 40
23 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
903
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0
0 1
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 8:30 AM
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 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
5 0
Interval
Start
Hansen Rd Hansen Rd Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 5 2 9 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
0 2 0 3 7
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 5
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 5
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
2 4
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 1 0 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Hansen Rd Hansen Rd Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
904
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
3 7
0 1
0 2
9 3
25 1 1 2 3 7 0 1 11
0 2
Peak Hour 0 1 5 1 7 0 0
Count Total 0 1 6 2 9 0 0 3 1 4 11 12
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0
0 0 6 2 0 1
0 5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 2 5 0
1 5 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2
0 1 0
HV% - 0% 0% - - - - 1%
0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 2
West North South
4:00 PM 0 1 3
0 0 0 3 1 28 0 0 446 16 0 21 99
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 100% 0% 0% - 5% 0% 0% 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 21 1
58 0 0 795 27 1
1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 7 0
22 658 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 39 4 0 0 7 3 49 220 60 1,263 0
0 1 0 5 0 0 77 1 0 10 24 11 134 605
8 20 11 146 615
5:45 PM 0 5 0 0
8 0 0 90 3 0
173 656
5:30 PM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0
0 2 2 8 0 0 93 6 0 6 44 8
4 33 8 152 630
5:15 PM 0 4 0 0
9 0 0 89 1 1
144 658
5:00 PM 0 4 2 0 0 1 0
0 2 0 6 0 0 98 2 0 4 26 2
8 23 4 187 0
4:45 PM 0 4 0 0
8 0 0 134 3 0
147 0
4:30 PM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 0 0 88 7 0 3 30 9
6 20 7 180 0
4:15 PM 0 4 0 0
4:00 PM 0 6 1 0 0 1 1 8 0 0 126 4 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Hansen Rd Hansen Rd Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 03-26-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.7% 0.85
TOTAL 1.1% 0.88
TH RT
WB 3.1% 0.80
NB 1.1% 0.84
Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.0% 0.79
0 0
0 0
10 01
0 0
0 0
0 1
7 3
N
Arroyo Rd
Hansen Rd
Hansen Rd
Arroyo Rd
Hansen Rd
Arroyo Rd
TEV: 658
PHF: 0.88
22 99
21 142
495
0 28
1 3
32 38
0 16
446
0 102
462
0 0
1 21
22 23
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
905
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 1 0 2
0 3 0 0 4 0
0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
0 2
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
3 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3
5:15 PM
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 5:00 PM
0 0 0 1
1 0
4:45 PM
0 1 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
7 0
Interval
Start
Hansen Rd Hansen Rd Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 1 0 9 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 1 4
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 7
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 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
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 5 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Hansen Rd Hansen Rd Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
906
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 5
4 11
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 1
Peak Hr 4 0 0 2 6 0 0
Count Total 6 0 4 5 15 0 0 0 1 1 4 9
8:45 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 4 0
0 0 1 1 1 1
0 8:30 AM 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4 1
0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 7:30 AM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
HV% - 0% - 5% - - 0% 0%
0 0
7:15 AM 2 0 0 1 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 1 0 0
0 75 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 122
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- - - - - - 1% 0% 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 63 0
0 0 11 51 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 0
208 483 0
HV 0 0 0 4 0
Count Total 0 135 0 124 0 0 0 0 215 358 894 0
0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 24 35 96 411
0 23 42 97 434
8:45 AM 0 16 0 9
0 0 1 8 0 0
110 473
8:30 AM 0 15 0 8 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 34 35
0 12 38 108 475
8:15 AM 0 21 0 11
0 0 1 16 0 0
119 483
8:00 AM 0 20 0 21 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 35 46
0 37 54 136 0
7:45 AM 0 13 0 20
0 0 3 3 0 0
112 0
7:30 AM 0 16 0 23 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 26 52
0 24 56 116 0
7:15 AM 0 17 0 16
7:00 AM 0 17 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd 0 Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 0.6% 0.91
TOTAL 1.2% 0.89

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB - -
NB 0.0% 0.63
Peak Hour: 7:00 AM 8:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 2.9% 0.88
Date: 03-26-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 N
Arroyo Rd
Wetmore Rd
Arroyo Rd
Arroyo Rd
Wetmore Rd
TEV: 483
PHF: 0.89
208
122 330
73 0
10 5
197
15 0
75 63 138
213
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
907
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0
8:45 AM 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
8:15 AM 0 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
7:45 AM 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
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
6 0
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd 0 Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 4 1 15 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 4
Count Total 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9
0 2 0 4 7
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 5
8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 2 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 6
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 2 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd 0 Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
908
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
9 10
3 0
7 3
5 1
38 1 1 2 4 7 9 2 22
17 4
Peak Hr 5 0 1 0 6 0 0
Count Total 7 0 1 1 9 1 0 2 1 4 6 11
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 2 0 1 2
0 5:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 2
4 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 3
0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
1 0 1
1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 3 5
0 4 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 0 0 0 2
0 1 1
HV% - 1% - 5% - - 0% 1%
4 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 3
West North South
4:00 PM 3 0 1
0 20 0 0 0 0 0 73 109 0 0 0 30
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- - - - - - 0% 0% 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 346 0
0 0 108 155 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0
68 646 0
HV 0 4 0 1 0
Count Total 0 661 0 41 0 0 0 0 66 158 1,189 0
0 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 11 14 114 543
0 3 18 123 570
5:45 PM 0 70 0 4
0 0 4 8 0 0
156 629
5:30 PM 0 85 0 5 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 11 12 0 0 0 11 35
0 11 23 150 619
5:15 PM 0 85 0 2
0 0 14 17 0 0
141 646
5:00 PM 0 75 0 10 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 10 17
0 6 16 182 0
4:45 PM 0 84 0 6
0 0 21 38 0 0
146 0
4:30 PM 0 97 0 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 22 17 0 0 0 8 21
0 6 14 177 0
4:15 PM 0 75 0 3
4:00 PM 0 90 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 21 39 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd 0 Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 0.0% 0.84
TOTAL 0.9% 0.89

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB - -
NB 0.5% 0.76
Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.4% 0.91
Date: 03-26-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
0 0
1 0 0
1 9
2 7
4 N
Arroyo Rd
Wetmore Rd
Arroyo Rd
Arroyo Rd
Wetmore Rd
TEV: 646
PHF: 0.89
6830 98
455
0 109
73 50
182
0 20
346 366
141
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
909
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0
Count Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 2
0 2
5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 3
2 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 1
1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 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
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
6 0
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd 0 Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 9 0
Peak Hour 0 4 0 1
Count Total 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 2 5
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3
5:30 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 6
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 2 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 0 0
0 0 0 4 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd 0 Arroyo Rd Arroyo Rd 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
910
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 2
2 2
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2
Peak Hr 4 1 0 0 5 0 0
Count Total 6 3 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 0 4
8:45 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
HV% - - 3% - - - - -
0 0
7:15 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- 0% - - - 0% - 0% 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 143
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
13 370 0
HV 0 0 4 0 0
Count Total 0 7 262 0 0 0 373 2 0 21 665 0
0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 67 295
0 0 1 70 322
8:45 AM 0 1 24 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
74 348
8:30 AM 0 0 24 0 0 0 45
0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 3 84 359
8:15 AM 0 4 34 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
94 370
8:00 AM 0 2 37 0 0 0 42
0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
1 0 3 96 0
7:45 AM 0 0 37 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
85 0
7:30 AM 0 0 37 0 0 0 55
0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 3 95 0
7:15 AM 0 0 31 0
7:00 AM 0 0 38 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd Wetmore Rd 0 Talinga Dr 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 0.0% 0.58
TOTAL 1.4% 0.96

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 0.5% 0.97
NB - -
Peak Hour: 7:00 AM 8:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 2.8% 0.94
Date: 03-26-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
Talinga Dr
Wetmore Rd
Wetmore Rd
Talinga Dr
Wetmore Rd
TEV: 370
PHF: 0.96
131 14
0 0
0 213 213
144
0 143
0 143
226
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
911
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:30 AM 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
0 8:00 AM 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
7:30 AM 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

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
5 0
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd Wetmore Rd 0 Talinga Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 9 0
Peak Hour 0 0 4 0
Count Total 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
0 0 0 1 2
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 4
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0
7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd Wetmore Rd 0 Talinga Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
912
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
3 5
7 3
3 3
0 3
27 0 0 1 0 6 0 10 16
0 20
Peak Hr 2 1 0 0 3 0 1
Count Total 7 1 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 2 0 7
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 5:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
0 3
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 3
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 3
4 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 3 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 0 0 0 2
0 0 0
HV% - 0% 1% - - - - -
0 3
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- 1% - - - - - 0% 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 16 368
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
12 544 0
HV 0 0 2 0 0
Count Total 0 34 709 0 0 0 271 1 0 16 1,031 0
0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 492
0 0 0 115 512
5:45 PM 0 6 76 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
142 544
5:30 PM 0 2 89 0 0 0 24
0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 3 132 538
5:15 PM 0 3 92 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
123 539
5:00 PM 0 6 83 0 0 0 40
0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 4 147 0
4:45 PM 0 2 94 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
136 0
4:30 PM 0 5 99 0 0 0 39
0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
1 0 2 133 0
4:15 PM 0 5 87 0
4:00 PM 0 5 89 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd Wetmore Rd 0 Talinga Dr 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 0.0% 0.75
TOTAL 0.6% 0.93

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 0.7% 0.84
NB - -
Peak Hour: 4:30 PM 5:30 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.5% 0.92
Date: 03-26-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 10
6 0
N
Talinga Dr
Wetmore Rd
Wetmore Rd
Talinga Dr
Wetmore Rd
TEV: 544
PHF: 0.93
120 12
16 0
0 148 148
368
0 368
16 384
160
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
913
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Count Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 2
0 1
5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 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
4:30 PM 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

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
3 0
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd Wetmore Rd 0 Talinga Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 8 0
Peak Hour 0 0 2 0
Count Total 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 2 5
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 5
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 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 0 0
0 0 0 3 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Wetmore Rd Wetmore Rd 0 Talinga Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
914
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
2 0
0 3
1 1
1 3
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
0 10
Peak Hr 0 3 8 9 20 0 0
Count Total 0 6 17 20 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 1
1 8:30 AM 0 1 3 4 8 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 1 4 5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3
8:00 AM 0 2 4 4 10 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 7:30 AM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 6 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 2 2 4
0 0 0
HV% - - - - - - - 2%
0 2
7:15 AM 0 1 1 2 4 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 4
2 0 0 218 0 56 0 0 278 134 0 31 495
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
1% - 2% 1% - 3% 2% - 2%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
86 0 0 534 249 0
0 1 0 0 6 2 0 1 8 0 20 0
0 1,212 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 412 0 57 911 0 2,249 0
0 40 0 6 0 0 73 26 0 3 88 0 236 1,058
7 113 0 265 1,147
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 70 20 0
263 1,194
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 50 0
0 40 0 14 0 0 56 36 0 14 103 0
16 122 0 294 1,212
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 62 37 0
325 1,191
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 37 0
0 56 0 6 0 0 66 35 0 6 156 0
4 113 0 312 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 76 32 0
281 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 65 0
0 60 0 8 0 0 74 30 0 5 104 0
2 112 0 273 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 5 0 0 57 33 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
0 Wetmore Rd Vallecitos Rd Holmes St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 1.7% 0.81
TOTAL 1.7% 0.93

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 1.1% 0.79
NB 1.9% 0.95
Peak Hour: 7:15 AM 8:15 AM
HV %: PHF
EB - -
Date: 03-26-2019
N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
Vallecitos Rd
Wetmore Rd
Wetmore Rd
Holmes St
Vallecitos Rd
TEV: 1,212
PHF: 0.93
495
31 526
334 0
56 218 274
165
0 278134
713
412
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
915
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 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
8:30 AM 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
0 8:00 AM 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
7:30 AM 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

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
20 0
Interval
Start
0 Wetmore Rd Vallecitos Rd Holmes St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 2 0 1 0 0 6 2 0 1 8 0
3 17 0 43 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 12 5 0
0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 27
1 3 0 8 27
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 2 1 0
5 21
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0
0 4 0 10 20
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 3 1 0
4 16
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0
1 0 0 2 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
4 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0
0 2 0 6 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 2 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
0 Wetmore Rd Vallecitos Rd Holmes St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
916
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
5 4
5 3
1 0
0 1
19 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 2
0 13
Peak Hr 0 0 8 0 8 0 0
Count Total 0 1 13 4 18 0 1 1 5 7 1 5
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:30 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
5:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 2
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4
2 4:30 PM 0 0 2 2 4 0 1 1
0 1 1 0 2 0
0 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1
1 3 1
HV% - - - - - - - 1%
0 4
4:15 PM 0 1 0 2 3 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 1
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 2
0 0 0 133 0 23 0 0 724 370 0 30 309
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% - 0% 1% - 0% 0% - 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
56 0 0 1,353 745 0
0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 8 0
0 1,589 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 283 0 60 658 0 3,155 0
0 20 0 3 0 0 190 93 0 9 78 0 393 1,589
2 78 0 400 1,564
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 197 90 0
410 1,546
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 25 0
0 51 0 5 0 0 168 86 0 12 88 0
7 65 0 386 1,563
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 169 101 0
368 1,566
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 37 0
0 30 0 7 0 0 147 92 0 6 86 0
4 83 0 382 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 150 91 0
427 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 38 0
0 48 0 5 0 0 170 97 0 12 95 0
8 85 0 389 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 5 0 0 162 95 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
0 Wetmore Rd Vallecitos Rd Holmes St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB 0.0% 0.85
TOTAL 0.5% 0.97

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
WB 0.0% 0.70
NB 0.7% 0.95
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB - -
Date: 03-26-2019
N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Vallecitos Rd
Wetmore Rd
Wetmore Rd
Holmes St
Vallecitos Rd
TEV: 1,589
PHF: 0.97
309
30 339
747 0
23 133 156
400
0 724
370
442
1,094
0 11 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
917
www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 0 7 0
0 0 1 1 0 2 2
0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3
5:30 PM 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 4
5 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
8 0
Interval
Start
0 Wetmore Rd Vallecitos Rd Holmes St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0
0 4 0 18 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8
0 0 0 3 7
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 2 0
2 8
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 9
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 10
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 4 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
3 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 2 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
0 Wetmore Rd Vallecitos Rd Holmes St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 14
918
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS
Appendix C – Level of Service Results
ATTACHMENT 14
919
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS
Existing Conditions LOS Reports
ATTACHMENT 14
920
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
1: Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 0 2 5 1 48 1 94 3 24 282 21
Future Vol, veh/h 38 0 2 5 1 48 1 94 3 24 282 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 01100400004
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - 150 135 - 135
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 79 79 79 72 72 72 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00000111111
Mvmt Flow 49 0 3 6 1 61 1 131 4 29 336 25
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 564 535 341 542 556 131 365 0 0 135 0 0 Stage 1 398 398 - 133 133 -------
Stage 2 166 137 - 409 423 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 439 454 706 454 442 924 1199 - - 1456 - - Stage 1 632 606 - 875 790 -------
Stage 2 841 787 - 623 591 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 401 443 703 445 431 924 1194 - - 1456 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 401 443 - 445 431 -------
Stage 1 629 591 - 874 789 -------
Stage 2 784 786 - 608 577 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 9.8 0.1 0.6

HCM LOS C A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1194 - - 410 824 1456 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.127 0.083 0.02 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 - - 15.1 9.8 7.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.4 0.3 0.1 - -
ATTACHMENT 14
921
HCM 6th AWSC AM Peak
2: Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 75 5 10 122 208
Future Vol, veh/h 63 75 5 10 122 208
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.63 0.63 0.91 0.91
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 72 85 8 16 134 229
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 8.6 8 8.6

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 33% 46% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 67% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 54% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 15 138 122 208
LT Vol 5 63 0 0
Through Vol 10 0 122 0
RT Vol 0 75 0 208
Lane Flow Rate 24 157 134 229
Geometry Grp 5277
Degree of Util (X) 0.032 0.197 0.184 0.268
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.832 4.512 4.928 4.225
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 741 797 729 853
Service Time 2.859 2.528 2.647 1.944
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 0.197 0.184 0.268
HCM Control Delay 8 8.6 8.8 8.5
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.1
ATTACHMENT 14
922
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
3: Wetmore Rd & Talinga Dr 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 143 213 0 1 13
Future Vol, veh/h 0 143 213 0 1 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 97 97 58 58
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 31100
Mvmt Flow 0 152 220 0 2 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 220 0 - 0 372 220
Stage 1 - - - - 220 -
Stage 2 - - - - 152 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1343 - - - 633 825
Stage 1 - - - - 821 -
Stage 2 - - - - 881 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1343 - - - 633 825
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 633 -
Stage 1 - - - - 821 -
Stage 2 - - - - 881 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.6

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1343 - - - 808
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.03
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 9.6
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
ATTACHMENT 14
923
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 278 134 31 495 218 56
Future Volume (veh/h) 278 134 31 495 218 56
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q, 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
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 293 141 38 611 276 71
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.79
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 1 1
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 1445 678 48 1270 312 278
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.62 0.62 0.03 0.68 0.17 0.17
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 9.7 9.8 76.7 9.7 59.6 39.7
Ln Grp LOS AAEAED
Approach Vol, veh/h 434 649 347
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 13.6 55.5
Approach LOS A B E
Timer: 12345678
Assigned Phs 1 2 8 6
Case No 2.0 8.0 9.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 73.0 23.1 80.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3
Max Green (Gmax), s 11.0 59.7 26.0 74.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.7 7.0 3.8 6.9
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 4.3 8.2 18.5 19.1
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 5.5 0.6 9.4
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1795
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 2441 0 1870
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1102 1598 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 15300000
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L
ATTACHMENT 14
924
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 5
Lanes in Grp 10100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 38 0 276 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1781 0 1795 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.3 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.3 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1795 00000
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 67.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 48 0 312 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.78 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 178 0 424 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 53.2 0.0 44.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.5 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 76.7 0.0 59.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 1.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.3 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.09 0.00 2.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 02800600
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 01000100
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 220 0 0 0 611 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1777 0 0 0 1870 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1094 0 0 0 1270 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1094 0 0 0 1270 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 ATTACHMENT 14
925
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 6
3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 01100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 214 71 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1672 1598 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.66 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1029 278 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.21 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1029 378 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 9.3 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.8 39.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.23 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.6
HCM 6th LOS C
ATTACHMENT 14
926
HCM 6th TWSC PM Peak
1: Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 1 0 3 1 28 0 446 16 21 99 22
Future Vol, veh/h 21 1 0 3 1 28 0 446 16 21 99 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 01100703307
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - 150 135 - 135
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 80 80 80 84 84 84 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00330111111
Mvmt Flow 27 1 0 4 1 35 0 531 19 25 116 26
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 732 726 124 715 733 534 149 0 0 553 0 0 Stage 1 173 173 - 534 534 -------
Stage 2 559 553 - 181 199 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.13 6.53 6.2 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.527 4.027 3.3 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 339 354 932 344 347 550 1439 - - 1022 - - Stage 1 834 760 - 528 523 -------
Stage 2 517 518 - 818 735 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 308 342 925 335 335 548 1429 - - 1019 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 308 342 - 335 335 -------
Stage 1 828 736 - 526 521 -------
Stage 2 483 516 - 796 711 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17.8 12.7 0 1.3

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1429 - - 309 508 1019 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.092 0.079 0.024 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 17.8 12.7 8.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 0.3 0.1 - -
ATTACHMENT 14
927
HCM 6th AWSC PM Peak
2: Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.4
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 346 20 73 109 30 68
Future Vol, veh/h 346 20 73 109 30 68
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 111100
Mvmt Flow 380 22 96 143 36 81
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 14.1 11.3 8.7

HCM LOS B B A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 40% 95% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 5% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 182 366 30 68
LT Vol 73 346 0 0
Through Vol 109 0 30 0
RT Vol 0 20 0 68
Lane Flow Rate 239 402 36 81
Geometry Grp 5277
Degree of Util (X) 0.352 0.555 0.058 0.115
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.295 4.967 5.834 5.124
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 673 720 607 691
Service Time 3.38 3.037 3.633 2.922
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.355 0.558 0.059 0.117
HCM Control Delay 11.3 14.1 9 8.6
HCM Lane LOS BBAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 3.4 0.2 0.4
ATTACHMENT 14
928
HCM 6th TWSC PM Peak
3: Wetmore Rd & Talinga Dr 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 368 148 0 0 12
Future Vol, veh/h 16 368 148 0 0 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00009
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 84 84 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11100
Mvmt Flow 17 400 176 0 0 16
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 176 0 - 0 610 185
Stage 1 - - - - 176 -
Stage 2 - - - - 434 -
Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1406 - - - 461 862
Stage 1 - - - - 859 -
Stage 2 - - - - 658 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1406 - - - 454 855
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 454 -
Stage 1 - - - - 845 -
Stage 2 - - - - 658 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 9.3

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1406 - - - 855
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - - 0.019
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 9.3
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
ATTACHMENT 14
929
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 724 370 30 309 133 23
Future Volume (veh/h) 724 370 30 309 133 23
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q, 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
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 762 389 35 364 190 33
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 1271 647 51 1213 241 215
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.64 0.13 0.13
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 13.1 13.4 48.7 6.3 35.0 27.2
Ln Grp LOS B B D A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1151 399 223
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 10.0 33.9
Approach LOS B B C
Timer: 12345678
Assigned Phs 1 2 8 6
Case No 2.0 8.0 9.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 44.0 13.3 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3
Max Green (Gmax), s 11.0 29.7 16.0 44.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.7 7.0 3.8 6.9
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 3.3 17.6 9.1 8.0
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 8.5 0.3 4.4
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.49 1.00 0.99 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 0 1810
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 2391 0 1900
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1169 1610 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 15300000
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L
ATTACHMENT 14
930
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 5
Lanes in Grp 10100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 35 0 190 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1810 0 1810 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 1.3 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 1.3 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1810 00000
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 38.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 51 0 241 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.69 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 284 0 414 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 33.7 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 48.7 0.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.5 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.05 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 02800600
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 01000100
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 594 0 0 0 364 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1791 0 0 0 1900 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 991 0 0 0 1213 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 991 0 0 0 1213 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 ATTACHMENT 14
931
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 6
3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 01100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 557 33 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1675 1610 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 15.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 15.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.70 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 927 215 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.60 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 927 368 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 10.5 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 13.4 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 4.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.53 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.1
HCM 6th LOS B
ATTACHMENT 14
932
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS
Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS Reports
ATTACHMENT 14
933
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
1: Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd 08/21/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS 7:00 am 03/26/2019 Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 0 5 5 1 48 3 94 3 24 282 25
Future Vol, veh/h 42 0 5 5 1 48 3 94 3 24 282 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 01100400004
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - 150 135 - 135
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 79 79 79 72 72 72 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00000111111
Mvmt Flow 55 0 6 6 1 61 4 131 4 29 336 30
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 570 541 341 552 567 131 370 0 0 135 0 0 Stage 1 398 398 - 139 139 -------
Stage 2 172 143 - 413 428 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 435 451 706 447 436 924 1194 - - 1456 - - Stage 1 632 606 - 869 785 -------
Stage 2 835 782 - 620 588 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 397 439 703 434 424 924 1189 - - 1456 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 397 439 - 434 424 -------
Stage 1 628 591 - 866 783 -------
Stage 2 776 780 - 601 574 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 9.8 0.2 0.5

HCM LOS C A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1189 - - 416 820 1456 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.147 0.083 0.02 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 - - 15.1 9.8 7.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.3 0.1 - -
ATTACHMENT 14
934
HCM 6th AWSC AM Peak
2: Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd 08/20/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS 7:00 am 03/26/2019 Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 65 75 5 10 123 210
Future Vol, veh/h 65 75 5 10 123 210
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.63 0.63 0.91 0.91
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 74 85 8 16 135 231
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 8.7 8 8.6

HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 33% 46% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 67% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 54% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 15 140 123 210
LT Vol 5 65 0 0
Through Vol 10 0 123 0
RT Vol 0 75 0 210
Lane Flow Rate 24 159 135 231
Geometry Grp 5277
Degree of Util (X) 0.032 0.2 0.185 0.271
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.841 4.522 4.934 4.231
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 740 795 729 852
Service Time 2.868 2.541 2.653 1.95
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 0.2 0.185 0.271
HCM Control Delay 8 8.7 8.8 8.5
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.1
ATTACHMENT 14
935
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
3: Wetmore Rd & Talinga Dr 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 145 215 0 1 14
Future Vol, veh/h 0 145 215 0 1 14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 97 97 58 58
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 31100
Mvmt Flow 0 154 222 0 2 24
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 222 0 - 0 376 222
Stage 1 - - - - 222 -
Stage 2 - - - - 154 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1341 - - - 629 823
Stage 1 - - - - 820 -
Stage 2 - - - - 879 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1341 - - - 629 823
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 629 -
Stage 1 - - - - 820 -
Stage 2 - - - - 879 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 9.6

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1341 - - - 806
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.032
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 9.6
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
ATTACHMENT 14
936
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 278 136 31 495 220 57
Future Volume (veh/h) 278 136 31 495 220 57
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q, 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
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 293 143 38 611 278 72
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.79
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 1 1
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 1438 684 48 1270 314 280
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.62 0.62 0.03 0.68 0.18 0.18
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 9.7 9.8 76.7 9.7 59.8 39.7
Ln Grp LOS AAEAED
Approach Vol, veh/h 436 649 350
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 13.6 55.6
Approach LOS A B E
Timer: 12345678
Assigned Phs 1 2 8 6
Case No 2.0 8.0 9.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 73.0 23.3 80.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3
Max Green (Gmax), s 11.0 59.7 26.0 74.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.7 7.0 3.8 6.9
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 4.3 8.2 18.6 19.1
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 5.5 0.6 9.4
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1795
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 2429 0 1870
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1112 1598 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 15300000
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L
ATTACHMENT 14
937
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 5
Lanes in Grp 10100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 38 0 278 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1781 0 1795 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.3 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.3 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1795 00000
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 67.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 48 0 314 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.78 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 178 0 424 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 53.2 0.0 44.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.5 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 76.7 0.0 59.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 1.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.3 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.09 0.00 2.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 02800600
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 01000100
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 221 0 0 0 611 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1777 0 0 0 1870 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1094 0 0 0 1270 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1094 0 0 0 1270 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 ATTACHMENT 14
938
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 6
3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 01100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 215 72 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1670 1598 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1028 280 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.21 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1028 378 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 9.3 39.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.8 39.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.23 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.7
HCM 6th LOS C
ATTACHMENT 14
939
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
5: Project Driveway & Hansen Rd 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 0 6 23 1 7
Future Vol, veh/h 40 0 6 23 1 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 43 0 7 25 1 8
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 43 0 82 43
Stage 1 - - - - 43 -
Stage 2 - - - - 39 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 920 1027
Stage 1 - - - - 979 -
Stage 2 - - - - 983 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1566 - 915 1027
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 915 -
Stage 1 - - - - 979 -
Stage 2 - - - - 978 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 8.6

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 1012 - - 1566 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
ATTACHMENT 14
940
HCM 6th TWSC PM Peak
1: Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 1 6 3 1 28 10 446 16 21 99 35
Future Vol, veh/h 28 1 6 3 1 28 10 446 16 21 99 35
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 01100703307
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - 150 135 - 135
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 80 80 80 84 84 84 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00330111111
Mvmt Flow 36 1 8 4 1 35 12 531 19 25 116 41
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 756 750 124 750 772 534 164 0 0 553 0 0 Stage 1 173 173 - 558 558 -------
Stage 2 583 577 - 192 214 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.13 6.53 6.2 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.527 4.027 3.3 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 327 342 932 326 329 550 1421 - - 1022 - - Stage 1 834 760 - 512 510 -------
Stage 2 502 505 - 807 724 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 296 328 925 313 315 548 1412 - - 1019 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 296 328 - 313 315 -------
Stage 1 821 736 - 506 504 -------
Stage 2 465 499 - 778 701 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17.4 12.8 0.2 1.2

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1412 - - 336 501 1019 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.135 0.08 0.024 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 17.4 12.8 8.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.3 0.1 - -
ATTACHMENT 14
941
HCM 6th AWSC PM Peak
2: Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 355 20 73 110 31 73
Future Vol, veh/h 355 20 73 110 31 73
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 111100
Mvmt Flow 390 22 96 145 37 87
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 14.6 11.4 8.8

HCM LOS B B A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 40% 95% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 5% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 183 375 31 73
LT Vol 73 355 0 0
Through Vol 110 0 31 0
RT Vol 0 20 0 73
Lane Flow Rate 241 412 37 87
Geometry Grp 5277
Degree of Util (X) 0.357 0.571 0.061 0.127
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.335 4.99 5.973 5.263
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 667 717 603 686
Service Time 3.427 3.071 3.673 2.963
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.361 0.575 0.061 0.127
HCM Control Delay 11.4 14.6 9.1 8.7
HCM Lane LOS BBAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.6 3.6 0.2 0.4
ATTACHMENT 14
942
HCM 6th TWSC PM Peak
3: Wetmore Rd & Talinga Dr 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 377 153 0 0 12
Future Vol, veh/h 17 377 153 0 0 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00009
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 84 84 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11100
Mvmt Flow 18 410 182 0 0 16
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 182 0 - 0 628 191
Stage 1 - - - - 182 -
Stage 2 - - - - 446 -
Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1399 - - - 450 856
Stage 1 - - - - 854 -
Stage 2 - - - - 649 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1399 - - - 442 849
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 442 -
Stage 1 - - - - 839 -
Stage 2 - - - - 649 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 9.3

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1399 - - - 849
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - - 0.019
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 9.3
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
ATTACHMENT 14
943
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes st. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 724 378 32 309 136 25
Future Volume (veh/h) 724 378 32 309 136 25
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q, 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
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 762 398 38 364 194 36
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 1256 654 54 1213 246 219
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.64 0.14 0.14
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 13.3 13.6 49.0 6.3 34.9 27.1
Ln Grp LOS B B D A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1160 402 230
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 10.3 33.7
Approach LOS B B C
Timer: 12345678
Assigned Phs 1 2 8 6
Case No 2.0 8.0 9.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 43.9 13.5 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3
Max Green (Gmax), s 11.0 29.7 16.0 44.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.7 7.0 3.8 6.9
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 3.5 17.9 9.3 8.0
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 8.4 0.3 4.4
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.52 1.00 0.99 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 0 1810
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 2371 0 1900
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1185 1610 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 15300000
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L
ATTACHMENT 14
944
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes st. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 5
Lanes in Grp 10100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 38 0 194 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1810 0 1810 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 1.5 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 1.5 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1810 00000
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 38.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 54 0 246 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.70 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 284 0 414 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 33.6 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 49.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.06 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 02800600
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 01000100
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 599 0 0 0 364 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1791 0 0 0 1900 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 988 0 0 0 1213 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 988 0 0 0 1213 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 ATTACHMENT 14
945
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes st. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 6
3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 01100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 561 36 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1672 1610 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 15.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 15.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.71 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 922 219 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.61 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 922 368 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 10.6 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 13.6 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 4.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 5.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.54 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3
HCM 6th LOS B
ATTACHMENT 14
946
HCM 6th TWSC PM Peak
5: Project Driveway & Hansen Rd 07/17/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 1 23 23 0 13
Future Vol, veh/h 22 1 23 23 0 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 79 79 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 20022
Mvmt Flow 24 1 29 29 0 14
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 25 0 112 25
Stage 1 - - - - 25 -
Stage 2 - - - - 87 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 885 1051
Stage 1 - - - - 998 -
Stage 2 - - - - 936 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 869 1051
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 869 -
Stage 1 - - - - 980 -
Stage 2 - - - - 936 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.6 8.5

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 1051 - - 1603 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.018 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT 14
947
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS
Cumulative (2040) No Project Conditions LOS Reports
ATTACHMENT 14
948
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
1: Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 0 3 7 1 68 1 133 4 34 400 30
Future Vol, veh/h 54 0 3 7 1 68 1 133 4 34 400 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 01100703307
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - 150 135 - 135
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 80 80 80 84 84 84 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00330111111
Mvmt Flow 70 0 4 9 1 85 1 158 5 40 471 35
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 764 726 479 735 756 161 513 0 0 166 0 0 Stage 1 558 558 - 163 163 -------
Stage 2 206 168 - 572 593 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.13 6.53 6.2 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.527 4.027 3.3 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 323 354 591 334 336 889 1058 - - 1418 - - Stage 1 518 515 - 837 761 -------
Stage 2 801 763 - 503 492 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 283 340 587 323 323 886 1051 - - 1414 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 283 340 - 323 323 -------
Stage 1 514 497 - 834 758 -------
Stage 2 722 760 - 485 475 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.5 10.5 0.1 0.6

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1051 - - 291 749 1414 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.254 0.127 0.028 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - - 21.5 10.5 7.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 1 0.4 0.1 - -
ATTACHMENT 14
949
HCM 6th AWSC AM Peak
2: Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 89 107 7 14 173 295
Future Vol, veh/h 89 107 7 14 173 295
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 111100
Mvmt Flow 98 118 9 18 206 351
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 9.9 8.4 10.2

HCM LOS A A B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 33% 45% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 67% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 55% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 21 196 173 295
LT Vol 7 89 0 0
Through Vol 14 0 173 0
RT Vol 0 107 0 295
Lane Flow Rate 28 215 206 351
Geometry Grp 5277
Degree of Util (X) 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.426
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.168 4.844 5.069 4.365
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 689 741 708 822
Service Time 3.224 2.883 2.805 2.101
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 0.29 0.291 0.427
HCM Control Delay 8.4 9.9 9.9 10.3
HCM Lane LOS AAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 1.2 1.2 2.1
ATTACHMENT 14
950
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
3: Wetmore Rd & Talinga Dr 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 203 302 0 1 18
Future Vol, veh/h 0 203 302 0 1 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00009
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 84 84 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11100
Mvmt Flow 0 221 360 0 1 24
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 360 0 - 0 581 369
Stage 1 - - - - 360 -
Stage 2 - - - - 221 -
Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1204 - - - 479 681
Stage 1 - - - - 710 -
Stage 2 - - - - 821 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1204 - - - 479 675
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 479 -
Stage 1 - - - - 710 -
Stage 2 - - - - 821 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1204 - - - 661
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.038
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 10.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
ATTACHMENT 14
951
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 395 190 44 703 310 80
Future Volume (veh/h) 395 190 44 703 310 80
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q, 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
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 416 200 52 827 443 114
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 1283 610 66 1213 414 368
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.64 0.23 0.23
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 9.7 9.8 51.4 11.2 91.5 22.9
Ln Grp LOS A A D B F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 616 879 557
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 13.6 77.5
Approach LOS A B E
Timer: 12345678
Assigned Phs 1 2 8 6
Case No 2.0 8.0 9.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 43.4 20.0 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3
Max Green (Gmax), s 11.0 29.7 16.0 44.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.7 7.0 3.8 6.9
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 4.0 8.9 18.0 21.5
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 6.4 0.0 10.9
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 0 1810
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 2449 0 1900
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1120 1610 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 15300000
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L
ATTACHMENT 14
952
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 5
Lanes in Grp 10100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 52 0 443 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1810 0 1810 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1810 00000
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 66 0 414 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.78 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 284 0 414 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 33.4 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.0 0.0 64.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 51.4 0.0 91.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.8 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.1 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.08 0.00 3.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 02800600
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 01000100
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 315 0 0 0 827 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1791 0 0 0 1900 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 976 0 0 0 1213 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 976 0 0 0 1213 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 ATTACHMENT 14
953
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 6
3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 01100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 301 114 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1684 1610 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 917 368 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.33 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 917 368 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 8.8 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.8 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 1.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.23 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.8
HCM 6th LOS C
ATTACHMENT 14
954
HCM 6th TWSC PM Peak
1: Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 1 0 4 1 40 0 633 23 30 141 31
Future Vol, veh/h 30 1 0 4 1 40 0 633 23 30 141 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 01100703307
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - 150 135 - 135
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 80 80 80 84 84 84 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00330111111
Mvmt Flow 39 1 0 5 1 50 0 754 27 35 166 36
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1036 1027 174 1013 1036 757 209 0 0 784 0 0 Stage 1 243 243 - 757 757 -------
Stage 2 793 784 - 256 279 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.13 6.53 6.2 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.527 4.027 3.3 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 212 236 875 216 231 411 1368 - - 839 - - Stage 1 765 708 - 398 414 -------
Stage 2 385 407 - 746 678 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 178 224 868 207 219 410 1359 - - 837 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 178 224 - 207 219 -------
Stage 1 760 673 - 397 413 -------
Stage 2 337 406 - 713 645 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 30.9 16.4 0 1.4

HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1359 - - 179 371 837 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.225 0.152 0.042 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 30.9 16.4 9.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.8 0.5 0.1 - -
ATTACHMENT 14
955
HCM 6th AWSC PM Peak
2: Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 26.4
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 491 28 104 155 43 97
Future Vol, veh/h 491 28 104 155 43 97
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 111100
Mvmt Flow 540 31 137 204 51 115
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 36.4 17.4 10.4

HCM LOS E C B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 40% 95% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 5% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 259 519 43 97
LT Vol 104 491 0 0
Through Vol 155 0 43 0
RT Vol 0 28 0 97
Lane Flow Rate 341 570 51 115
Geometry Grp 5277
Degree of Util (X) 0.58 0.883 0.097 0.197
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.123 5.573 6.851 6.134
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 586 650 520 581
Service Time 4.189 3.624 4.637 3.92
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.582 0.877 0.098 0.198
HCM Control Delay 17.4 36.4 10.4 10.4
HCM Lane LOS C E B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 3.7 10.6 0.3 0.7
ATTACHMENT 14
956
HCM 6th TWSC PM Peak
3: Wetmore Rd & Talinga Dr 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 523 210 0 0 17
Future Vol, veh/h 23 523 210 0 0 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00009
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 84 84 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11100
Mvmt Flow 25 568 250 0 0 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 250 0 - 0 868 259
Stage 1 - - - - 250 -
Stage 2 - - - - 618 -
Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1321 - - - 325 785
Stage 1 - - - - 796 -
Stage 2 - - - - 542 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1321 - - - 316 778
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 316 -
Stage 1 - - - - 774 -
Stage 2 - - - - 542 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 9.8

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1321 - - - 778
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - - 0.029
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - - 9.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.1
ATTACHMENT 14
957
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1028 525 43 439 189 33
Future Volume (veh/h) 1028 525 43 439 189 33
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q, 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
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1082 553 51 516 270 47
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 1269 624 65 1213 321 286
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.04 0.64 0.18 0.18
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 22.1 26.4 51.7 7.4 39.4 24.7
Ln Grp LOS C C D A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1635 567 317
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.2 11.4 37.2
Approach LOS C B D
Timer: 12345678
Assigned Phs 1 2 8 6
Case No 2.0 8.0 9.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.5 43.5 16.4 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3
Max Green (Gmax), s 11.0 29.7 16.0 44.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.7 7.0 3.8 6.9
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 4.0 31.8 12.1 11.4
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.7
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.01 0.00 0.92 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 0 1810
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 2421 0 1900
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1143 1610 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 15300000
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L
ATTACHMENT 14
958
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 5
Lanes in Grp 10100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 51 0 270 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1810 0 1810 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1810 00000
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 38.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 65 0 321 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.78 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 284 0 414 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 33.5 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.3 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 51.7 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.8 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.08 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 02800600
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 01000100
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 823 0 0 0 516 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1791 0 0 0 1900 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 977 0 0 0 1213 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 977 0 0 0 1213 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 ATTACHMENT 14
959
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 6
3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 01100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 812 47 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1679 1610 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 29.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 29.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.68 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 916 286 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.89 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 916 368 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 14.0 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 12.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 26.4 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 8.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 11.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 1.21 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.0
HCM 6th LOS C
ATTACHMENT 14
960
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS
Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Conditions LOS Reports
ATTACHMENT 14
961
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
1: Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd 08/20/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS 7:00 am 03/26/2019 Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 0 6 7 1 68 3 133 4 34 400 34
Future Vol, veh/h 58 0 6 7 1 68 3 133 4 34 400 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 01100703307
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - 150 135 - 135
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 80 80 80 84 84 84 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00330111111
Mvmt Flow 75 0 8 9 1 85 4 158 5 40 471 40
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 770 732 479 745 767 161 518 0 0 166 0 0 Stage 1 558 558 - 169 169 -------
Stage 2 212 174 - 576 598 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.13 6.53 6.2 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.527 4.027 3.3 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 320 351 591 329 331 889 1053 - - 1418 - - Stage 1 518 515 - 831 757 -------
Stage 2 795 759 - 501 489 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 279 336 587 316 317 886 1046 - - 1414 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 279 336 - 316 317 -------
Stage 1 513 497 - 825 752 -------
Stage 2 715 754 - 480 472 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.1 10.5 0.2 0.6

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1046 - - 293 745 1414 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - 0.284 0.128 0.028 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 22.1 10.5 7.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 1.1 0.4 0.1 - -
ATTACHMENT 14
962
HCM 6th AWSC AM Peak
2: Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd 08/20/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS 7:00 am 03/26/2019 Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 91 107 7 14 175 297
Future Vol, veh/h 91 107 7 14 175 297
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 111100
Mvmt Flow 100 118 9 18 208 354
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 9.9 8.5 10.2

HCM LOS A A B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 33% 46% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 67% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 54% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 21 198 175 297
LT Vol 7 91 0 0
Through Vol 14 0 175 0
RT Vol 0 107 0 297
Lane Flow Rate 28 218 208 354
Geometry Grp 5277
Degree of Util (X) 0.04 0.294 0.294 0.429
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.182 4.857 5.077 4.373
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 688 738 706 820
Service Time 3.237 2.896 2.813 2.109
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 0.295 0.295 0.432
HCM Control Delay 8.5 9.9 9.9 10.4
HCM Lane LOS AAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 1.2 1.2 2.2
ATTACHMENT 14
963
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
3: Wetmore Rd & Talinga Dr 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 205 304 0 1 19
Future Vol, veh/h 0 205 304 0 1 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00009
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 84 84 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11100
Mvmt Flow 0 223 362 0 1 25
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 362 0 - 0 585 371
Stage 1 - - - - 362 -
Stage 2 - - - - 223 -
Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1202 - - - 477 679
Stage 1 - - - - 709 -
Stage 2 - - - - 819 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1202 - - - 477 673
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 477 -
Stage 1 - - - - 709 -
Stage 2 - - - - 819 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1202 - - - 659
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.04
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 10.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
ATTACHMENT 14
964
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd./Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 395 192 44 703 312 81
Future Volume (veh/h) 395 192 44 703 312 81
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q, 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
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 416 202 52 827 446 116
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 1278 614 66 1213 414 368
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.64 0.23 0.23
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 9.7 9.8 51.4 11.2 93.8 22.9
Ln Grp LOS A A D B F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 618 879 562
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 13.6 79.2
Approach LOS A B E
Timer: 12345678
Assigned Phs 1 2 8 6
Case No 2.0 8.0 9.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 43.4 20.0 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3
Max Green (Gmax), s 11.0 29.7 16.0 44.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.7 7.0 3.8 6.9
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 4.0 9.0 18.0 21.5
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 6.5 0.0 10.9
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 0 1810
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 2441 0 1900
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1127 1610 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 15300000
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L
ATTACHMENT 14
965
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd./Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 5
Lanes in Grp 10100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 52 0 446 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1810 0 1810 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1810 00000
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 66 0 414 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.78 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 284 0 414 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 33.4 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.0 0.0 66.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 51.4 0.0 93.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.8 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.1 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.08 0.00 3.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 02800600
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 01000100
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 316 0 0 0 827 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1791 0 0 0 1900 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 976 0 0 0 1213 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 976 0 0 0 1213 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 ATTACHMENT 14
966
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd./Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 6
3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 01100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 302 116 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1682 1610 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 7.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 7.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 916 368 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.33 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 916 368 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 8.8 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.8 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 1.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.23 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.3
HCM 6th LOS C
ATTACHMENT 14
967
HCM 6th TWSC AM Peak
5: Project Driveway & Hansen Rd 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 0 6 33 1 7
Future Vol, veh/h 57 0 6 33 1 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 79 79 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 20022
Mvmt Flow 62 0 8 42 1 8
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 62 0 120 62
Stage 1 - - - - 62 -
Stage 2 - - - - 58 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1554 - 876 1003
Stage 1 - - - - 961 -
Stage 2 - - - - 965 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1554 - 872 1003
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 872 -
Stage 1 - - - - 961 -
Stage 2 - - - - 960 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.1 8.7

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 985 - - 1554 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
ATTACHMENT 14
968
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Arroyo Rd & Hansen Rd 08/19/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS 4:00 pm 03/26/2019 Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 1 6 4 1 40 10 633 23 30 141 44
Future Vol, veh/h 37 1 6 4 1 40 10 633 23 30 141 44
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 01100703307
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 150 - 150 135 - 135
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 80 80 80 84 84 84 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 00330111111
Mvmt Flow 48 1 8 5 1 50 12 754 27 35 166 52
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1060 1051 174 1049 1076 757 225 0 0 784 0 0 Stage 1 243 243 - 781 781 -------
Stage 2 817 808 - 268 295 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.13 6.53 6.2 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.13 5.53 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.527 4.027 3.3 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 204 229 875 205 218 411 1350 - - 839 - - Stage 1 765 708 - 386 404 -------
Stage 2 373 397 - 735 667 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 170 215 868 194 205 410 1341 - - 837 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 170 215 - 194 205 -------
Stage 1 753 673 - 381 399 -------
Stage 2 324 392 - 696 634 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 31.5 16.6 0.1 1.3

HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1341 - - 192 366 837 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.298 0.154 0.042 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - - 31.5 16.6 9.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 1.2 0.5 0.1 - -
PM Peak
ATTACHMENT 14
969
HCM 6th AWSC PM Peak
2: Arroyo Rd & Wetmore Rd 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 28.1
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 500 28 104 156 44 102
Future Vol, veh/h 500 28 104 156 44 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 111100
Mvmt Flow 549 31 137 205 52 121
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 39.5 17.7 10.6

HCM LOS E C B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 40% 95% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 60% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 5% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 260 528 44 102
LT Vol 104 500 0 0
Through Vol 156 0 44 0
RT Vol 0 28 0 102
Lane Flow Rate 342 580 52 121
Geometry Grp 5277
Degree of Util (X) 0.587 0.903 0.1 0.209
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.177 5.604 6.904 6.187
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 582 644 515 576
Service Time 4.247 3.657 4.693 3.976
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.588 0.901 0.101 0.21
HCM Control Delay 17.7 39.5 10.5 10.6
HCM Lane LOS C E B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 3.8 11.3 0.3 0.8
ATTACHMENT 14
970
HCM 6th TWSC PM Peak
3: Wetmore Rd & Talinga Dr 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 532 215 0 0 17
Future Vol, veh/h 24 532 215 0 0 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00009
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 84 84 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11100
Mvmt Flow 26 578 256 0 0 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 256 0 - 0 886 265
Stage 1 - - - - 256 -
Stage 2 - - - - 630 -
Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1315 - - - 318 779
Stage 1 - - - - 791 -
Stage 2 - - - - 535 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1315 - - - 309 772
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 309 -
Stage 1 - - - - 768 -
Stage 2 - - - - 535 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 9.8

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1315 - - - 772
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - - - 0.029
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - - 9.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.1
ATTACHMENT 14
971
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1028 533 45 439 192 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 1028 533 45 439 192 35
Number 2 12 1 6 3 18
Initial Q, 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
Lanes Open During Work Zone
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1082 561 53 516 274 50
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 0 0
Opposing Right Turn Influence Yes Yes
Cap, veh/h 1260 627 68 1213 325 289
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prop Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.64 0.18 0.18
Unsig. Movement Delay
Ln Grp Delay, s/veh 22.6 27.3 51.0 7.4 39.7 24.6
Ln Grp LOS C C D A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1643 569 324
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.9 11.4 37.4
Approach LOS C B D
Timer: 12345678
Assigned Phs 1 2 8 6
Case No 2.0 8.0 9.0 4.0
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 43.4 16.6 50.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3
Max Green (Gmax), s 11.0 29.7 16.0 44.7
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.7 7.0 3.8 6.9
Max Q Clear (g_c+l1), s 4.0 32.3 12.2 11.4
Green Ext Time (g_e), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.7
Prob of Phs Call (p_c) 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prob of Max Out (p_x) 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.00
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 1 5 3
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 0 1810
Through Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 2 8 6
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 2410 0 1900
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Mvmt 12 18 16
Mvmt Sat Flow, veh/h 1152 1610 0
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 15300000
Lane Assignment L (Prot) L
ATTACHMENT 14
972
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 5
Lanes in Grp 10100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 53 0 274 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1810 0 1810 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1810 00000
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 68 0 325 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.78 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 284 0 414 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 33.4 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.6 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 51.0 0.0 39.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.8 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.08 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 02800600
Lane Assignment T T
Lanes in Grp 01000100
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 826 0 0 0 516 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1791 0 0 0 1900 0 0
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 974 0 0 0 1213 0 0
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 974 0 0 0 1213 0 0
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 ATTACHMENT 14
973
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 6
3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 0 0 16 0 0
Lane Assignment T+R R
Lanes in Grp 01100000
Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 817 50 0 0 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1678 1610 00000
Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 30.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 30.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 0.69 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 913 289 00000
V/C Ratio (X) 0.00 0.89 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 913 368 00000
Upstream Filter (I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 14.2 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 13.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 27.3 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 8.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 11.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 1.25 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 00000000
Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.5
HCM 6th LOS C
ATTACHMENT 14
974
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak 5: Project Driveway & Hansen Rd 07/17/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 1 23 33 0 13
Future Volume (Veh/h) 31 1 23 33 0 13
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.79 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 34 1 29 42 0 14
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 35 134 34
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 35 134 34
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1589 843 1039
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 35 71 14
Volume Left 0 29 0
Volume Right 1 0 14
cSH 1700 1589 1039
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1
Control Delay (s) 0.0 3.1 8.5
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.1 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
ATTACHMENT 14
975
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS
Appendix C – Queuing Reports for Signalized Intersection ATTACHMENT 14
976
Queues AM Peak
4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 434 38 611 276 71
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.30 0.46 0.80 0.19
Control Delay 7.2 54.0 8.3 58.9 9.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.2 54.0 8.3 58.9 9.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 26 162 185 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 53 220 229 27
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 554 215
Turn Bay Length (ft) 360 90
Base Capacity (vph) 2223 177 1340 418 432
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.21 0.46 0.66 0.16
Intersection Summary
Description: Vallecitos Rd & Wetmore Rd
ATTACHMENT 14
977
Queues PM Peak
4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS 4:00 pm 03/26/2019 Existing Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1151 35 364 190 33
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.20 0.28 0.60 0.11
Control Delay 9.3 31.0 5.3 34.3 9.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.3 31.0 5.3 34.3 9.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 14 50 76 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 240 36 91 96 13
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 554 215
Turn Bay Length (ft) 360 90
Base Capacity (vph) 2167 283 1312 408 394
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.12 0.28 0.47 0.08
Intersection Summary
Description: Vallecitos Rd & Wetmore Rd
ATTACHMENT 14
978
Queues AM Peak
4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 436 38 611 278 72
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.30 0.46 0.80 0.19
Control Delay 7.1 54.0 8.4 59.0 9.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.1 54.0 8.4 59.0 9.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 26 162 187 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 53 220 231 27
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 554 215
Turn Bay Length (ft) 360 90
Base Capacity (vph) 2222 177 1339 418 432
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.21 0.46 0.67 0.17
Intersection Summary
Description: Vallecitos Rd & Wetmore Rd
ATTACHMENT 14
979
Queues PM Peak
4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes st. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Existing + Project Conditions Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1160 38 364 194 36
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.21 0.28 0.61 0.11
Control Delay 9.4 31.1 5.3 34.5 9.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.4 31.1 5.3 34.5 9.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 15 50 77 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 243 38 91 97 13
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 554 215
Turn Bay Length (ft) 360 90
Base Capacity (vph) 2162 283 1310 408 396
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.13 0.28 0.48 0.09
Intersection Summary
Description: Vallecitos Rd & Wetmore Rd
ATTACHMENT 14
980
Queues AM Peak
4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 616 52 827 443 114
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.27 0.68 1.09 0.25
Control Delay 8.6 31.6 11.8 99.2 6.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 31.6 11.8 99.2 6.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 21 197 ~219 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 103 47 278 #257 19
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 554 215
Turn Bay Length (ft) 360 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1872 283 1213 408 457
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.18 0.68 1.09 0.25
Intersection Summary
Description: Vallecitos Rd & Wetmore Rd
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT 14
981
Queues PM Peak
4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St 04/11/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1635 51 516 270 47
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.27 0.41 0.74 0.13
Control Delay 20.0 31.6 7.0 39.3 8.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.0 31.6 7.0 39.3 8.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 308 21 94 107 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #516 46 138 132 15
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 554 215
Turn Bay Length (ft) 360 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1958 283 1261 408 405
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.18 0.41 0.66 0.12
Intersection Summary
Description: Vallecitos Rd & Wetmore Rd
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT 14
982
Queues AM Peak
4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd./Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 618 52 827 446 116
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.27 0.68 1.09 0.25
Control Delay 8.6 31.6 11.8 101.6 6.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 31.6 11.8 101.6 6.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 21 197 ~222 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 103 47 278 #259 19
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 554 215
Turn Bay Length (ft) 360 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1874 283 1213 408 458
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.18 0.68 1.09 0.25
Intersection Summary
Description: Vallecitos Rd & Wetmore Rd
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT 14
983
Queues PM Peak
4: Wetmore Rd & Vallecitos Rd/Holmes St. 04/23/2019
Livermore Wine Country Inn TIS: Cumulative Growth + Project Trips Synchro 10 Report TJKM Page 1
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1643 53 516 274 50
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.27 0.41 0.75 0.14
Control Delay 20.3 31.7 7.1 39.6 8.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.3 31.7 7.1 39.6 8.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 313 21 94 108 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #520 48 138 134 15
Internal Link Dist (ft) 192 554 215
Turn Bay Length (ft) 360 90
Base Capacity (vph) 1954 283 1258 408 407
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.84 0.19 0.41 0.67 0.12
Intersection Summary
Description: Vallecitos Rd & Wetmore Rd
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

ATTACHMENT 14
984
2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 § SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 § (925) 866-0322 § www.cbandg.com SAN RAMON § ROSEVILLE
CIVIL ENGINEERS § SURVEYORS § PLANNERS
\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx April 20, 2023
Job No.: 2985-000

M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City of Livermore – Community Development Department CC: Michelle Boss – LWCI, LLC
FROM: Jason D. Vogan, P.E., Principal
Kevin G. Lapp, P.E., Project Manager
SUBJECT: Vehicular Access to Proposed Livermore Wine Country Inn Site Livermore Wine Country Inn – APN 99-460-8
3459 Arroyo Road
Livermore, CA 94550

SUMMARY
As a part of the city’s entitlement process, the Livermore Wine Country Inn (LWCI) project was presented to the Planning Commission on November 5, 2019, and City Council on January 13, 2020. During the administrative public hearings for the proposed project, it was suggested by several community members that the vehicular access point to the project site should be relocated from Hansen Road to Arroyo Road. This Technical Memorandum is being prepared at the request of the City of Livermore and evaluates various design considerations related to the feasibility of relocating the project’s vehicular access point from Hansen Road to Arroyo Road as suggested by members of the community.

PROJECT SETTING
The proposed Livermore Wine Country Inn project is located within the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan originally adopted November 17, 1997, and amended February 2004 (SLVSP). The approximately 3.21-acre parcel lies southwest of the intersection of Arroyo Road (to the east) and Hansen Road (to the north). Existing vineyards surround the southerly and westerly edges of the project site. The project site lies within Subarea #5, Parcel 5-D as depicted in the SLVSP. Parcel 5-D includes 3 commercial parcels identified as “Site 5D1 – Commercial Center”, the proposed project site, “Site 5D2 – Wine County Inn and Restaurant”, and “Site 5D3 – Small Winery”. See Figure 1 – Project Location.

ATTACHMENT 15
985
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

Page 2 of 10 ends

Livermore City CouncilMay 22, 2023

Livermore City Council
May 22, 2023