Agenda packet — Livermore City Council, July 22, 2024 (part 8 of 11)

Intersection: 1: Gateway Avenue & Main Street
Movement EB WB WB SB
Directions Served LT T TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 152 117 122 44
Average Queue (ft) 96 63 73 19
95th Queue (ft) 153 100 109 41
Link Distance (ft) 196 196
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R R L L L T TR L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 175 494 514 323 237 43 311 343 388 385 200 224 Average Queue (ft) 13 293 305 121 116 4 138 212 186 140 100 111 95th Queue (ft) 87 480 498 366 228 23 362 407 563 441 170 188 Link Distance (ft) 862 862 670 670
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 350 350 400 400 400 275 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 6 0 0 0 15 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 20 1 0 1 41 0 0
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 180 126 22 82 122 235 28
Average Queue (ft) 63 63 4 23 16 112 5
95th Queue (ft) 143 113 16 59 83 208 21
Link Distance (ft) 328 328 568 568
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 170 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0

EXHIBIT D
1991
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
2040 Baseline 06/11/2024
2040 PM SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 14: Isabel & Gateway Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR R L TR L L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 75 202 76 99 91 162 173 185 150 127 341 403 Average Queue (ft) 45 127 66 41 37 77 103 77 54 41 183 245 95th Queue (ft) 83 219 92 83 72 132 157 148 118 88 300 364 Link Distance (ft) 196 210 210 434 434 434 675 675 675
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 50 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 17 30 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 67 76 24
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB B28 B28
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 64 194 50 71 174 141 92 56 240 266 325 352 Average Queue (ft) 23 79 17 25 83 50 30 13 107 227 85 185 95th Queue (ft) 53 144 43 57 151 112 76 38 228 292 275 422 Link Distance (ft) 309 675 675 170 170 170 328 328
Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 46 0 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 124 0 25
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 48
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 22: Main Street/Montage Dr & Portola
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 240 364 380 119 165 180 121 122 57 96 Average Queue (ft) 66 167 193 53 77 95 17 62 22 45
95th Queue (ft) 160 306 339 103 140 157 65 108 49 81
Link Distance (ft) 616 616 862 862 215 215
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 290 295 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 416

EXHIBIT D
1992
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 1 Lane 06/11/2024
2040 + Proj 1 Ln AM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 1
Intersection: 1: Gateway Avenue & Main Street
Movement EB WB WB SB
Directions Served LT T R LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 144 206 40 22
Average Queue (ft) 86 174 8 10
95th Queue (ft) 136 205 31 24
Link Distance (ft) 196 196
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R R L L L T TR L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 14 132 142 140 138 366 416 425 682 644 240 241 Average Queue (ft) 1 76 80 46 59 85 216 268 327 229 125 121 95th Queue (ft) 7 123 134 100 113 307 490 493 768 606 209 209 Link Distance (ft) 862 862 670 670
Upstream Blk Time (%) 27 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 350 350 400 400 400 275 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 5 31 3 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 17 100 9 0 0
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 190 157 66 36 43 157 14
Average Queue (ft) 65 65 16 9 3 56 1
95th Queue (ft) 135 124 42 30 23 127 9
Link Distance (ft) 328 328 568 568
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 170 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0

EXHIBIT D
1993
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 1 Lane 06/11/2024
2040 + Proj 1 Ln AM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 2
Intersection: 14: Isabel & Gateway Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR R L TR L L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 198 75 240 58 250 468 492 377 122 716 706 Average Queue (ft) 21 97 63 114 21 249 446 385 87 25 680 686 95th Queue (ft) 55 185 88 253 51 253 484 592 234 91 729 704 Link Distance (ft) 196 352 352 434 434 434 678 678
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 32 19 0 25 41
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 151 88 0 96 154
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 50 225 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 19 4 73 64 0 83
Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 45 10 210 185 1 16
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B28
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T T R T
Maximum Queue (ft) 81 256 103 48 224 365 182 42 272 269 170 89 Average Queue (ft) 17 104 35 10 131 107 56 8 218 226 70 3 95th Queue (ft) 57 194 86 35 241 266 135 30 305 302 202 50 Link Distance (ft) 475 678 678 170 170 170 328
Upstream Blk Time (%) 68 79 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 135 158 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 2 5 0 81 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 12 1 21 1
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement B28 B28
Directions Served T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 354 364
Average Queue (ft) 223 242
95th Queue (ft) 460 463
Link Distance (ft) 328 328
Upstream Blk Time (%) 19 31
Queuing Penalty (veh) 39 62
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

EXHIBIT D
1994
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 1 Lane 06/11/2024
2040 + Proj 1 Ln AM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 3
Intersection: 22: Main Street/Montage Dr & Portola
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 32 117 134 166 202 208 182 65 54 158 Average Queue (ft) 7 50 72 71 99 108 81 12 16 69
95th Queue (ft) 24 92 125 152 178 187 143 37 41 125
Link Distance (ft) 616 616 862 862 215 215
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 290 295 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 5 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1544

EXHIBIT D
1995
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 1 Lane 06/11/2024
2040 + Proj 1 Ln PM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 1
Intersection: 1: Gateway Avenue & Main Street
Movement EB WB WB SB
Directions Served LT T R LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 183 206 41 31
Average Queue (ft) 147 166 12 12
95th Queue (ft) 184 197 37 28
Link Distance (ft) 196 196
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R R L L L T TR L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 94 850 850 375 351 219 417 425 706 685 213 229 Average Queue (ft) 7 545 570 314 257 20 329 406 603 331 109 118 95th Queue (ft) 60 910 940 508 414 118 547 490 925 809 210 223 Link Distance (ft) 862 862 670 670
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 3 74 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 26 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 350 350 400 400 400 275 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 28 27 14 17 0 3 79 1 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 100 78 96 0 7 219 2 0 1
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement NB NB NB B28 SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R T L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 239 112 49 5 90 201 355 92
Average Queue (ft) 58 54 13 0 28 41 182 11
95th Queue (ft) 160 102 35 3 90 210 430 70
Link Distance (ft) 328 328 170 568 568
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 170 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 7 24 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 2 0

EXHIBIT D
1996
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 1 Lane 06/11/2024
2040 + Proj 1 Ln PM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 2
Intersection: 14: Isabel & Gateway Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR R L TR L L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 75 209 75 158 107 250 463 496 422 225 508 586 Average Queue (ft) 61 194 69 60 42 248 449 281 98 52 320 393 95th Queue (ft) 88 223 90 135 84 256 462 588 312 138 490 562 Link Distance (ft) 196 210 210 434 434 434 675 675 675
Upstream Blk Time (%) 24 1 58 16 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 151 0 221 61 0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 50 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 44 35 14 75 74
Queuing Penalty (veh) 248 123 54 203 201
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B28
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T T R T
Maximum Queue (ft) 119 280 47 75 212 217 88 44 237 270 170 344 Average Queue (ft) 31 102 15 27 95 47 31 14 117 244 37 170 95th Queue (ft) 75 203 41 57 182 151 73 40 233 258 144 358 Link Distance (ft) 309 675 675 170 170 170 328
Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 78 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 220 0 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 77 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 3 0 13 0
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement B28
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 360
Average Queue (ft) 338
95th Queue (ft) 373
Link Distance (ft) 328
Upstream Blk Time (%) 38
Queuing Penalty (veh) 108
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

EXHIBIT D
1997
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 1 Lane 06/11/2024
2040 + Proj 1 Ln PM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 3
Intersection: 22: Main Street/Montage Dr & Portola
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 315 467 464 178 192 197 186 125 67 109 Average Queue (ft) 105 232 256 66 73 98 56 82 26 42
95th Queue (ft) 275 435 452 142 151 177 135 134 54 79
Link Distance (ft) 616 616 862 862 215 215
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 290 295 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 13 0 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 1 5
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2205

EXHIBIT D
1998
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 2 Lanes 06/10/2024
2040 + Proj 2 Ln AM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 1
Intersection: 1: Gateway Avenue & Main Street
Movement EB WB WB SB
Directions Served LT T TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 144 164 180 40
Average Queue (ft) 93 98 108 16
95th Queue (ft) 145 151 164 38
Link Distance (ft) 196 196
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R R L L L T TR L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 14 134 138 69 96 26 216 252 193 205 188 183 Average Queue (ft) 1 70 74 33 42 2 77 150 113 106 111 104 95th Queue (ft) 8 113 120 60 75 14 195 228 180 181 172 166 Link Distance (ft) 862 862 670 670
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 350 350 400 400 400 275 275
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 110 53 48 38 94 18
Average Queue (ft) 52 55 16 9 2 39 1
95th Queue (ft) 96 103 42 33 17 76 10
Link Distance (ft) 328 328 568 568
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 170 170
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

EXHIBIT D
1999
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 2 Lanes 06/10/2024
2040 + Proj 2 Ln AM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 2
Intersection: 14: Isabel & Gateway Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR R L TR L L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 199 75 185 56 234 301 327 204 124 443 489 Average Queue (ft) 17 111 64 79 18 127 154 163 76 27 227 270 95th Queue (ft) 49 198 91 157 46 209 241 285 164 91 403 448 Link Distance (ft) 196 352 352 434 434 434 678 678
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 50 225 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 25 5 0 1 0 44
Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 59 13 0 2 0 9
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B28
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T T R T
Maximum Queue (ft) 47 117 80 48 223 287 167 33 194 233 146 4 Average Queue (ft) 16 51 25 11 125 68 39 5 94 126 24 0
95th Queue (ft) 43 87 59 39 215 192 111 24 175 215 95 3 Link Distance (ft) 475 678 678 170 170 170 328
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 8 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 2 0
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement B28
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 28
Average Queue (ft) 1
95th Queue (ft) 14
Link Distance (ft) 328
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

EXHIBIT D
2000
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 2 Lanes 06/10/2024
2040 + Proj 2 Ln AM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 3
Intersection: 22: Main Street/Montage Dr & Portola
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 36 100 151 155 222 225 176 64 64 143 Average Queue (ft) 7 51 68 72 103 117 73 15 21 70
95th Queue (ft) 27 87 117 133 189 199 130 46 53 118
Link Distance (ft) 616 616 862 862 212 212
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 290 295 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 124

EXHIBIT D
2001
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 2 Lanes 06/10/2024
2040 + Proj 2 Ln PM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 1
Intersection: 1: Gateway Avenue & Main Street
Movement EB WB WB SB
Directions Served LT T TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 183 184 168 51
Average Queue (ft) 148 83 90 17
95th Queue (ft) 176 137 139 41
Link Distance (ft) 196 196
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R R L L L T TR L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 162 894 892 375 355 77 417 425 710 682 241 257 Average Queue (ft) 8 599 726 326 283 5 286 379 583 311 149 162 95th Queue (ft) 81 1081 1051 508 432 41 560 557 947 804 285 303 Link Distance (ft) 862 862 670 670
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 21 73 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 152 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 350 350 400 400 400 275 275
Storage Blk Time (%) 33 30 34 37 1 77 3 2 10
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 109 193 209 3 213 10 2 11
Intersection: 11: Isabel & Portola
Movement NB NB NB B28 B28 SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R T T L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 240 207 51 75 24 73 231 428 160
Average Queue (ft) 108 72 13 12 1 24 23 174 12
95th Queue (ft) 310 161 35 75 17 57 138 338 82
Link Distance (ft) 328 328 170 170 568 568
Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 170 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 23 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 1 0

EXHIBIT D
2002
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 2 Lanes 06/10/2024
2040 + Proj 2 Ln PM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 2
Intersection: 14: Isabel & Gateway Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR R L TR L L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 75 211 75 137 114 241 288 239 160 246 631 657 Average Queue (ft) 56 191 69 55 41 135 163 105 63 53 349 417 95th Queue (ft) 90 234 87 118 84 215 243 196 132 153 596 652 Link Distance (ft) 196 210 210 434 434 434 675 675 675
Upstream Blk Time (%) 18 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 126 0 0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 50 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 37 30 15 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 205 105 57 1 2
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B28
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T T R T
Maximum Queue (ft) 86 199 60 80 211 168 125 44 225 278 170 336 Average Queue (ft) 29 96 17 27 109 56 42 13 105 236 30 155 95th Queue (ft) 67 165 48 60 186 140 98 37 230 287 130 348 Link Distance (ft) 309 675 675 170 170 170 328
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 72 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 201 0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 200 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 71 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 12 0
Intersection: 19: Isabel Ave & A Street
Movement B28
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 353
Average Queue (ft) 301
95th Queue (ft) 475
Link Distance (ft) 328
Upstream Blk Time (%) 36
Queuing Penalty (veh) 100
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)

EXHIBIT D
2003
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak
2040 plus Project - Gateway 2 Lanes 06/10/2024
2040 + Proj 2 Ln PM Isabel TOD SimTraffic Report
TJKM Page 3
Intersection: 22: Main Street/Montage Dr & Portola
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 314 561 550 153 202 233 212 125 107 110 Average Queue (ft) 142 361 376 62 75 101 82 84 37 43
95th Queue (ft) 361 668 670 131 163 195 200 138 122 86
Link Distance (ft) 616 616 862 862 215 215
Upstream Blk Time (%) 14 15 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 65 69 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 290 295 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 42 0 20
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 54 1 15
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1979

EXHIBIT D
2004
Appendix E-2
Isabel Crossing Project – VMT Assessment

EXHIBIT D
2005
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
December 21, 2023 Project# 29502
To: Aileen Mahoney,
Rincon Environmental Engineers
449 25th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
From: Damian Stefanakis, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC:

RE: Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis

INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum summarizes the VMT assessment prepared by Kittelson for the Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project Analysis. The VMT Analysis was prepared to determine if the proposed modifications to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP) by the Livermore Transit Village project (Modified Project) incur any additional VMT impacts compared to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified on May 14, 2018, and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) dated September 30, 2020, for the INSP.

The developer for the Modified Project proposes to reduce the development size and intensity of the INSP.

This review has been prepared to indicate whether the assumptions, methodologies and conclusions of the Transportation Analysis are adequate and in accordance with the standards set in the City of Livermore General Plan and SB-743.

VMT AND SB-743
Under recent Senate Bill 743 legislation, local agencies may no longer solely rely on roadway/intersection delay and capacity-based analyses for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes, but rather, agencies must analyze transportation impacts utilizing vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”), which measures the number of vehicle trips generated by a project and the average distance of travel to and from the project. This is a change from the prior method of analyzing transportation impacts, which measured levels of service (“LOS”) at intersections and roadway segments, graded from LOS A to LOS F.

Travel delay as measured by LOS is no longer used as a metric to evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA but it’s often used to assess roadway capacity and conformance with desired LOS targets as part of policies in the City of Livermore General Plan.

This memorandum describes the recommended approach to evaluate VMT impacts. Given the SEIR cleared the project for VMT, this comparison focused on comparing the VMT of the modified project with the VMT from the original INSP. If the VMT with the modified project is less than the original SEIR, then the conclusion is that the modified project does not add any new VMT impacts.

At the time the SEIR reported VMT for the project, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) proposed using VMT as the metric for evaluating the significant traffic impacts, where projects that decrease VMT compared to existing conditions may be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.

Using this metric, the overall INSP SEIR was considered to have a less than significant impact for VMT. 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742

EXHIBIT D
2006
December 21, 2023 Page 2
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis Project Overview Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Subsequent Final OPR guidelines recommended using 85% of the existing VMT as considered to have a less than significant impact.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Modified Project is a proposed mixed-used development located on 45 acres at the southwest corner of Isabel Avenue and Portola Avenue in the City of Livermore. It is bordered by Isabel Avenue to the east, Portola Avenue to the north, I-580 to the south and existing office developments to the west. The Modified Project would be constructed within and would modify Subareas 3b and 3c of the INSP.

Figure 1 shows the vicinity of the modified project. Figure 2 displays the INSP to identify the location of Subareas 3b and 3c, Figure 3 displays the INSP Project Site Plan for Subareas 3b and 3c, Figure 4 displays the modified Project site plan for the same subareas, and Figure 5 displays the INSP model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) identifying the TAZs that cover Subareas 3b and 3c. Note, TAZ 1303 does cover both sides of Isabel Avenue and includes subareas 3b and 3a east of Isabel Avenue.

Figure 1: INSP Project Vicinity
Source: Transit Village Modified Project, CEQA Report, TJKM, July 17, 2023

EXHIBIT D
2007
December 21, 2023 Page 3
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis Project Overview Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 2: INSP Subareas
Source: INSP SEIR, 2018

EXHIBIT D
2008
December 21, 2023 Page 4
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis Project Overview Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 3: INSP Project Site Plan for Subareas 3b and 3c Source: INSP SEIR, 2018

EXHIBIT D
2009
December 21, 2023 Page 5
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis Project Overview Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 4: Modified Project Site Plan for Subareas 3b and 3c Source: Transit Village Modified Project, CEQA Report, TJKM, July 17, 2023

EXHIBIT D
2010
December 21, 2023 Page 6
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis Project Land Uses Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 5: INSP Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs)
Source: ACTC Countywide Model TAZ Map, Kittelson & Assoc, Inc., 2023

PROJECT LAND USES
The developer for the modified project has proposed to revise the land uses within Subareas 3b and 3c compared to the INSP SEIR. Table 1 displays the proposed change in land uses within Subareas 3b and 3c for the Modified Project compared to the INSP.

Table 1 Proposed Land Use Changes, INSP vs Modified Project Land Use Unit INSP SEIR Modified Project Change
Single Family Housing Dwelling Units 161 546 385
Multi-family Housing (Low-Rise) Dwelling Units 821 0 -821 Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) Dwelling Units 495 716 221 General Office Building 1,000 Square Feet 157.8 0 -157.8 Shopping Plaza 1,000 Square Feet 142.1 65.6 -76.5

EXHIBIT D
2011
December 21, 2023 Page 7
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis VMT Metrics And Thresholds Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2023
Kittelson used these revised land uses in the modeling to represent the modified project with appropriate splits between the two INSP TAZs that cover Subareas 3b and 3c.

VMT METRICS AND THRESHOLDS
VMT is determined by multiplying the number of vehicular trips by the trip distance in miles. For example, one vehicle that travels ten miles in a day generates ten vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Normally VMT is computed on a daily basis for a typical weekday. VMT can be expressed in several ways such as Total VMT, or based on efficiency metrics such as VMT per capita (aka per resident), VMT per worker (a.k.a. per employee), or VMT per service population used in the SEIR (service population is the sum of residents plus employees). VMT for land use projects are typically calculated and assessed on a per rate basis – per capita for residential projects or per employee for employment-generating projects. It should be noted that for the purposes of evaluating transportation impact under CEQA, only VMT from automobiles (not trucks) is to be considered.

For land plans such as the INSP, VMT is calculated for the full length of a given trip and are not truncated at jurisdiction boundaries. Additionally, these VMT values are for trips beginning or ending in the city (i.e., are associated with land uses within Livermore and the INSP). Trips passing through the city or INSP without stopping are not included in these VMT estimates, as the city/project has little or no control over such trips.

Although the absolute amount of VMT may be reported, transportation impact analysis is typically based on VMT expressed as an efficiency metric. VMT efficiency metrics, such as VMT per resident and VMT per employee, allow the VMT performance of different land use quantities to be compared. Such metrics provide a measure of travel efficiency and help depict whether people are traveling by vehicle more or less over time, across different areas, or across different planning scenarios. A per-capita or per-employee decline in VMT compared to a baseline condition indicates that the land use patterns and transportation network are operating more efficiently.

The City of Livermore has not adopted VMT criteria and thresholds to evaluate projects under CEQA.

Therefore, Kittelson is proposing to conduct a simple comparison of the modified project VMT to the original INSP project VMT for impact assessment.

VMT Mitigation
Per OPR Guidelines, if a Project results in a VMT impact then appropriate TDM trip reduction policies would need to be applied to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Analysis Scenarios
The following scenarios are analyzed using the INSP version of the ACTC Countywide model (to be consistent with the INSP forecasting).
 2040 INSP SEIR. Projected 2040 buildout land use for the INSP SEIR with focus on Subareas 3b and 3c  2040 Modified Project. Modified buildout land use proposed by Harridge in Subareas 3b and 3c

EXHIBIT D
2012
December 21, 2023 Page 8
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis VMT Modeling Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

VMT MODELING
To evaluate impacts from the Modified Project, Kittelson applied the INSP model used in the SEIR to the land uses proposed by the modified project for the two TAZs that cover subareas 3b (TAZ 1302) and 3c (1303).

There is some overlap in TAZ 1302 with existing land uses to the west, and TAZ 1303 also covers INSP areas to the east of Isabel Avenue. This overlap complicates the VMT results by including some existing land uses in subarea 3e as part of TAZ 1302, and with INSP land uses in subarea 3a as part of TAZ 1303 east of Isabel Avenue. Given these are common to both scenarios, their inclusion would not significantly compromise the VMT results. However, some office land uses do remain within TAZ 1303 but are not part of the modified project since they represent office uses east of Isabel Avenue in the same TAZ. So this VMT evaluation only focuses on subareas 3b (TAZ 1302) and 3c (1303). While Kittelson did not split the two TAZs which overlap Specific Plan parcels and existing uses since that would require significant effort, it is assumed the existing uses are common to both scenarios and would not factor into the VMT computation since the conclusions deal with net change VMT and VMT/capita and VMT/job ratios. Therefore, the VMT change is assumed to only be related to subareas 3b and 3c since the existing uses are common and included in both analyzes.

Kittelson ran the model for the modified project land uses and extracted VMT results for the comparison described below.

VMT ANALYSIS
To evaluate impacts from the Modified Project, the recommended metrics and thresholds described above for new residential, employment-generating, and retail projects would apply and are summarized in the following tables; Table 2 for residential VMT, Table 3 for Employment VMT, and Table 4 for Total VMT (used for the retail assessment).

Table 2 VMT Analysis – Residential VMT
Land Use INSP Project
VMT
INSP Project
VMT/Capita
Modified
Project VMT
Modified
Project
VMT/Capita
Net Change
Modified
Project – INSP
Project
Project 126,704 24.5 80,020 20.8 -3.7
City 3,712,376 31.8 3,560,947 30.9 -0.9
County 33,805,996 17.0 33,658,808 17.0 0.0
Region 161,000,734 17.5 160,794,201 17.5 0.0
Source: INSP SEIR Model, Kittelson & Associates, Inc, 2023 Table 3 VMT Analysis – Employment VMT
Land Use INSP Project
VMT
INSP Project
VMT/Employee
Modified
Project VMT
Modified
Project
VMT/Employee
Net Change
Modified
Project – INSP
Project
Project 50,474 12.7 44,260 13.4 +0.6
City 999,779 14.2 998,562 14.3 +0.1
County 14,861,937 15.2 14,873,157 15.2 0.0

EXHIBIT D
2013
December 21, 2023 Page 9
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis VMT Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Region 69,614,860 15.3 69,538,888 15.3 0.0
Source: INSP SEIR Model, Kittelson & Associates, Inc, 2023 Table 4 VMT Analysis - Total VMT (used for Retail Assessment) Land Use INSP Project
Total VMT
Modified Project
Total VMT
Net Change VMT
Modified Project –
INSP Project
Project 235,940 193,155 -42,785
City 6,013,569 5,905,715 -107,854
County 74,409,848 74,327,541 -82,307
Region 359,276,156 359,181,851 -94,305
Source: INSP SEIR Model, Kittelson & Associates, Inc, 2023 Note: Net change in Total VMT is used as a metric for the retail portion.

VMT FINDINGS
The VMT impacts of the Modified Project were assessed using the INSP version of the ACTC Countywide travel demand model using the recommended metrics and thresholds described above for new residential, employment-generating, and retail projects. While the INSP SEIR did not address VMT as an impact metric per SB-743, this analysis directly compares the INSP VMT to Modified Project VMT to disclose whether there would be additional total VMT or worse VMT metrics generated by the change in the project.
 The residential VMT per capita results in Table 2 shows the Modified Project VMT (80,020) at 20.8 VMT per capita, while the INSP VMT is higher at 126,704 and 24.5 VMT per capita. The Modified project therefore reduces the residential VMT and VMT per capita. While the INSP included appropriate TDM measures and much of the area is within 0.5 miles to high quality transit (Valley Rail), the same measures would apply to the Modified Project even though it does not demonstrate a VMT impact for residential.
 The VMT per employment results in Table 3 shows the Modified Project VMT (44,260) at 13.4 VMT per employee, while the INSP VMT is higher at 50,474 but with a slightly lower VMT per employee of

12.7. This demonstrates that while the total employment VMT is lower, the loss of office land uses contributes to a slight increase in VMT per employee with the modified project. In addition, the Modified project is still within 0.5 miles to high quality transit (Valley Rail) would still adhere to appropriate TDM measures specified in the SEIR.
 The Total VMT results in Table 4 are used to demonstrate the net change in retail VMT, which show the Modified Project VMT is less than the INSP, suggesting the reduction in retail contributes to lower net overall VMT.
 Overall, the reduction in residential and retail VMT compensates for the slight increase in VMT per employee between the original and modified projects, and therefore the comparison shows the overall VMT would be lower with the modified project.

Overall VMT findings suggest the modified project would not substantially increase VMT impacts compared to the INSP SEIR and with some metrics it reduces VMT impacts.

EXHIBIT D
2014
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
May 2, 2024 Project# 29502
To: Aileen Mahoney,
Rincon Environmental Engineers
449 25th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
From: Damian Stefanakis, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC:

RE: Livermore Isabel Transit Village - Harridge Modified Isabel Crossing Project – Revised VMT Assessment

INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum prepared by Kittelson & Assoc., Inc, summarizes the VMT assessment for the revised Harridge Isabel Crossing project located in the future Livermore Isabel Transit Village. Previously, Kittelson had prepared a detailed VMT assessment documented in a memorandum on December, 21, 2023. Since then, the project applicant, Harridge, has revised the project with the addition of 38 multifamily residential units (from 1,261 to 1,299 units). This memorandum provides a qualitative review of VMT and a statement of whether the change in project affects the VMT findings.

Previously, Kittelson prepared a VMT Analysis to determine if the Harridge proposed modifications to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP) by the Livermore Transit Village project (Modified Project) incur the same or any additional VMT impacts compared to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified on May 14, 2018, and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) dated September 30, 2020, for the INSP. A summary of those results and findings is shown below.

Summary of Prior VMT Assessment
Previously, the VMT impacts of the Modified Project were assessed using the INSP version of the ACTC Countywide travel demand model using the recommended metrics and thresholds described previously for new residential, employment-generating, and retail projects. • The residential VMT for the Modified Project was 80,020 and the VMT/capita was 20.8 VMT. The INSP VMT is higher at 126,704 and 24.5 VMT per capita. The Modified project therefore reduced the residential VMT and VMT per capita.
• The VMT per employment results showed the Modified Project VMT (44,260) at 13.4 VMT per employee, while the INSP VMT was higher at 50,474 and with a slightly lower VMT per employee of

12.7. This demonstrated that while the total employment VMT is lower, the loss of office land uses contributed to a slight increase in VMT per employee with the modified project. • The Total VMT results are used to demonstrate the net change in retail VMT, which showed the Modified Project VMT was less than the INSP, suggesting the reduction in retail contributed to lower net overall VMT.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742

EXHIBIT D
2015
May 2, 2024 Page 2
Livermore Isabel Transit Village Modified Project – VMT Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Overall, the reduction in residential and retail VMT compensated for the slight increase in VMT per employee between the original and modified projects, and therefore the comparison showed the overall VMT would be lower with the modified project.

Overall VMT findings suggested the Modified Project would not substantially increase VMT impacts compared to the INSP SEIR, and with some metrics it actually reduced VMT impacts.

Summary of Revised VMT Assessment (with 38 additional units) Now that the project has changed to add 38 additional multifamily units (the commercial size did not change), the VMT is expected to change:
• Given that VMT per SB 743 is assessed as an efficiency (ratio) metric, the increase in units will not appreciably change the VMT/capita ratio from the prior. As VMT increases, so does the population, so the finding of 20.8 VMT per capita will still be applicable and will remain lower than the INSP VMT/Capita of 24.5.
• The total residential VMT however will increase as a result of the additional units. This was previously reported as 80,020 VMT which is lower than the INSP VMT of 126,704. The additional units would conservatively add approximately 7,600 VMT for a net increase to 87,620 VMT, which still remains lower than the INSP VMT of 126,704.
• The commercial VMT based on VMT/employee and total retail VMT is not expected to change.

Conclusion
Based on this assessment, the increase of 38 multifamily residential units is not expected to incur any new VMT impacts and therefore the revised Project remains less than significant for VMT in accordance with the standards set in the City of Livermore General Plan and SB-743.

EXHIBIT D
2016
Appendix E-3
No Net Loss Project – Level of Service Assessment

EXHIBIT D
2017
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
June 20, 2024 Project# 30502
To: Aileen Mahoney,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 25th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
From: Damian Stefanakis, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC:

RE: Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment

INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc, (Kittelson) summarizes the Level of Service (LOS) assessment for the rezoning of specific parcels within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP) area. Following the INSP 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 2020 Supplemental EIR (D/SEIR) and the subsequent Isabel Crossing development application by Harridge, which has proposed a lower number of residential units in INSP Subareas 3b and 3c than anticipated under the INSP, we understand the City of Livermore is required to ensure no net loss of residential units to meet the City’s RHNA pursuant to Government Code 65863. As a result, the City has proposed two rezoning options to replace some of the planned office development with additional residential units in the INSP area.

Kittelson has modeled the two options using the citywide INSP traffic model and extracted VMT and intersection forecasts for LOS so that the city can assess if there is a substantial increase in the environmental impact conclusions provided in D/SEIR resulting from the implementation of either rezoning option. This memorandum focuses on intersection LOS, while a previous memo addressed VMT.

This memorandum provides a quantitative analysis of LOS to disclose if either rezoning option contributes to substantially more significant impacts compared to the D/SEIR.

All informational sections from the prior D/SEIR including regulatory section, existing setting and existing conditions are incorporated by reference.

SUMMARY OF LAND USE CHANGES
We understand that the city has proposed two options for rezoning, including sites within INSP Subareas 3a and/or 1d. The intent of the proposed rezoning is to ensure no net loss of housing opportunity sites, in accordance with the City’s adopted Housing Element, for the INSP area. Proposed and constructed developments in the INSP area have not met the anticipated unit counts identified in the INSP and/or Housing Element; therefore, the city desires to rezone certain parcels within the INSP area to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for the development of housing within the INSP area. The current shortfall of residential units is 344 units, with the trend of housing unit shortfalls anticipated to continue as the INSP area is built out.

155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742

EXHIBIT D
2018
June 20, 2024 Page 2
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Summary of Land Use Changes
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

The two options being considered for rezoning by the city include:

Option 1: Rezone the following parcel to residential: Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 903-10-36-3, BART Parcel West (INSP 3a), 913 units.
o Increase of 569 residential units and decrease of 946,994 square feet (sf) of office space, as compared to the certified INSP EIR
Option 2: Rezone the following parcels to residential: APN 905-10-23, Comcast Parcel West (INSP 1d), 350 units; APN 905-10-24, Comcast Parcel East (INSP 1d), 512 units; APN 903-10-36-3, BART Parcel West (INSP 3a), 913 units.
o Increase of 1,431 residential units and decrease of 1,531,486 sf of office space, as compared to the certified INSP EIR
Figure 1 displays the location of the parcels considered for rezoning.

Figure 1: INSP Proposed Rezoning Parcels
Source: Google Maps, City of Livermore, 2024

EXHIBIT D
2019
June 20, 2024 Page 3
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Significance Criteria Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The criteria used for intersection level of service are summarized below from the D/SEIR. The criteria used to evaluate whether the rezoning options have substantial increased impacts under 2040 cumulative conditions compared to the D/SEIR.

City of Livermore General Plan
The City of Livermore General Plan stipulates a transportation goal to “maintain adequate levels of service for all areas of the city.” “The upper limit of acceptable service at signalized intersections shall be mid level D, except in the Downtown Area and near freeway interchanges. The upper limit of acceptable level of service at selected intersections near freeway interchanges shall be LOS E” (City of Livermore, 2014). In addition, the General Plan identifies selected intersections that are exempt and may exceed the LOS standard.

The Circulation Element of the Livermore General Plan provides the policy framework for regulation and development of the City’s transportation system. This Element includes policies to plan for Complete Streets, promote multimodal transportation, provide a pedestrian network that encourages walking for transportation and recreation, and provide safe and convenient bicycle parking.

Local Roadway Intersections
Performance standards from the D/SEIR for traffic at local roadway intersections are described below.

An intersection impact would occur if, in either the AM or PM peak hour, the proposed Plan resulted in the following:
 An intersection operating at an acceptable mid level LOS D or better (corresponding to an average delay of 45 seconds per vehicle) under No Project Conditions degraded to an unacceptable high of LOS D or worse under Project Conditions.  An intersection near the freeway operating at an acceptable LOS E or better (80 seconds per vehicle) under No Project Conditions degraded to an unacceptable LOS F under Project Conditions.
 An intersection operating at substandard LOS under No Project Conditions increased average delays by more than 5 seconds per vehicle.

Note: Selected intersections with close proximity to the I-580 freeway are deemed Exempt per Livermore Policy: Goal CIR-5, Objective CIR-5.1 Policy P4, Circulation Element, Amended 2014 For signalized intersections in the study area, the analysis calculates the average delay per vehicle using the HCM 2000 methodology, via Synchro 11 traffic analysis software, to determine LOS, as shown in Table 1.

If the V/C ratio was found to exceed 1.0, regardless of the delay, the analysis assigned LOS F.

EXHIBIT D
2020
June 20, 2024 Page 4
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Summary of LOS Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 1 Level of Service Criteria – Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay (sec/veh) Level of Service
≤ 10
>10–20
>20–35
>35–55
>55–80
>80
A
B
C
D
E
F
Note: sec/veh = seconds per vehicle
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000.

For unsignalized intersections in the study area, the analysis used HCM 2000 methodology, determining the LOS by calculating the weighted average control delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle, as illustrated in Table 2. Control delay includes the sum of all individual movements that a vehicle might make at an unsignalized intersection, including initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. At two-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS was calculated for each controlled movement, as opposed to the intersection as a whole. If the V/C ratio of a lane was found to exceed 1.0, regardless of the control delay, the analysis assigned LOS F.

Table 2 Level of Service Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections Average Control Delay (sec/veh) Level of Service
≤ 10
>10–15
>15–25
>25–35
>35–50
>50
A
B
C
D
E
F
Note: sec/veh = seconds per vehicle
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000.

SUMMARY OF LOS ASSESSMENT
Previously, the D/SEIR summarized LOS results for 2040 plus project conditions at 25 key study intersections.

This LOS assessment has developed forecasts and LOS results for two different options at the same 25 intersections.

LOS Assessment - Option 1
Table 3 summarizes the LOS results for the D/SEIR compared to Option 1 for the AM peak hour, while Table 4 summarizes the LOS results for the D/SEIR compared to Option 1 for the PM peak hour. Detailed LOS calculations for Option 1 – AM Peak are provided in Appendix A, and PM Peak in Appendix B.

EXHIBIT D
2021
June 20, 2024 Page 5
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Summary of LOS Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 3: Intersection Level of Service - 2040 Cumulative Plus D/SEIR Project compared to 2040 Option 1 - AM Peak Hour
# Name Control Standard 2040 Plus D/SEIR
Project
2040 Plus Option 1
Project
V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
1 Isabel Avenue & Airway
Boulevard
Signal Exempt* 0.93 41.5 D 0.93 42.3 D
2 Murrieta Boulevard & Portola
Avenue
Signal Mid D 0.71 15.1 B 0.71 14.6 B
3 Livermore Avenue & Portola
Avenue
Signal Mid D 0.81 40.1 D 0.83 45.2 D
4 I-580 WB Ramps & Isabel Avenue Signal E 0.80 16.1 B 0.69 13.2 B 5 I-580 EB Ramps & Isabel Avenue Signal E 0.44 7.6 A 0.41 5.2 A 6 I-580 WB Ramps & Airway
Boulevard
Signal E 0.76 12.4 B 0.75 11.5 B
7 I-580 EB Ramps & Airway
Boulevard
Signal E 0.67 25.7 C 0.69 29.4 C
8 Isabel Avenue & Jack London
Boulevard
Signal Exempt* 0.98 53.7 D 1.03 57.8 E
9 Airway Boulevard & North
Canyons Parkway
Signal E 1.08 52.9 D 1.10 40.4 D
10 Collier Canyon Road & North
Canyons Parkway
Signal Mid D 0.59 19.1 B 0.64 19.8 B
11 Isabel Avenue & Portola Avenue Signal E 0.56 24.6 C 0.55 25.0 C 12 Rutan Drive & E. Airway
Boulevard
Signal Mid D 0.77 17.7 B 0.79 18.9 B
13 BART Access & E. Airway
Boulevard
Signal Mid D 0.84 29.9 C 0.88 22.9 C
14 Isabel Avenue & BART Parking
(North)
Signal Mid D 0.65 28.8 C 0.77 113.8 F
15 Portola Avenue & Main Street Signal Mid D 0.25 8.5 A 0.27 8.5 A 16 Sutter Street & E. Airway
Boulevard
Stop
Control
Mid D 0.40 7.2 A 0.45 6.7 A
17 Portola Avenue & E. Airway
Boulevard
Stop Mid D 0.50 10.0 B 0.49 10.7 B
18 Stealth Street & E. Airway
Boulevard
Future Mid D 0.55 12.3 B 0.58 11.6 B
19 Isabel Avenue & INP Road Future Mid D 0.54 20.2 C 0.45 23.6 C 20 Portola Avenue & Tranquility
Circle
Signal Mid D 0.57 14.2 B 0.53 13.4 B
21 Portola Avenue & Sandalwood
Drive
Stop Mid D 0.28 9.6 A 0.26 9.9 A
22 Portola Avenue & Montage
Drive/Road 3
Future Mid D 0.63 31.5 C 0.57 21.5 C
23 Portola Avenue & Road 1 Future Mid D 0.27 9.2 A 0.30 9.2 A 24 Portola Avenue & Road 2 Future Mid D 0.62 24.9 C 0.59 23.0 C 25 Portola Avenue & Road 4 Future Mid D 0.23 8.5 A 0.24 8.5 A

Notes:
* Exempt per Livermore Policy: Goal CIR-5, Objective CIR-5.1 Policy P4, Circulation Element, Amended 2014 Bold text indicates intersection operating beyond standard. Shaded cell indicates significant impact.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2024.

EXHIBIT D
2022
June 20, 2024 Page 6
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Summary of LOS Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 4: Intersection Level of Service - 2040 Cumulative Plus D/SEIR Project compared to 2040 Option 1 - PM Peak Hour
# Name Control Standard 2040 Plus D/SEIR
Project
2040 Plus Option 1
Project
V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
1 Isabel Avenue & Airway
Boulevard
Signal Exempt* 1.00 80.9 F 1.01 87.8 F
2 Murrieta Boulevard & Portola
Avenue
Signal Mid D 0.88 36.3 D 0.79 29.9 C
3 Livermore Avenue & Portola
Avenue
Signal Mid D 0.98 70.1 E 1.00 80.4 F
4 I-580 WB Ramps & Isabel Avenue Signal E 0.64 16.8 B 0.62 16.0 B 5 I-580 EB Ramps & Isabel Avenue Signal E 0.59 5.9 A 0.59 6.3 A 6 I-580 WB Ramps & Airway
Boulevard
Signal E 0.47 7.0 A 0.42 6.6 A
7 I-580 EB Ramps & Airway
Boulevard
Signal E 0.67 41.5 D 0.63 41.7 D
8 Isabel Avenue & Jack London
Boulevard
Signal Exempt* 0.97 56.2 E 0.95 53.3 D
9 Airway Boulevard & North
Canyons Parkway
Signal E 0.73 26.8 C 0.74 28.8 C
10 Collier Canyon Road & North
Canyons Parkway
Signal Mid D 0.59 19.3 B 0.63 19.7 B
11 Isabel Avenue & Portola Avenue Signal E 0.68 27.2 C 0.64 28.1 C 12 Rutan Drive & E. Airway
Boulevard
Signal Mid D 0.66 16.3 B 0.66 17.3 B
13 BART Access & E. Airway
Boulevard
Signal Mid D 0.83 24.7 C 0.84 26.0 C
14 Isabel Avenue & BART Parking
(North)
Signal Mid D 0.77 28.8 C 0.74 28.9 C
15 Portola Avenue & Main Street Signal Mid D 0.35 10.1 B 0.35 9.9 A 16 Sutter Street & E. Airway
Boulevard
Stop
Control
Mid D 0.32 4.7 A 0.41 5.3 A
17 Portola Avenue & E. Airway
Boulevard
Stop Mid D 0.78 20.7 C 0.77 21.4 C
18 Stealth Street & E. Airway
Boulevard
Future Mid D 0.55 9.0 A 0.63 9.8 A
19 Isabel Avenue & INP Road Future Mid D 0.66 23.6 C 0.74 28.2 C 20 Portola Avenue & Tranquility
Circle
Signal Mid D 0.73 31.3 C 0.67 29.0 C
21 Portola Avenue & Sandalwood
Drive
Stop Mid D 0.39 9.8 A 0.31 9.2 A
22 Portola Avenue & Montage
Drive/Road 3
Future Mid D 0.64 24.1 C 0.60 59.1 C
23 Portola Avenue & Road 1 Future Mid D 0.33 9.4 A 0.37 9.5 A 24 Portola Avenue & Road 2 Future Mid D 0.65 26.2 C 0.62 24.0 C 25 Portola Avenue & Road 4 Future Mid D 0.37 9.7 A 0.33 9.4 A

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2024.

EXHIBIT D
2023
June 20, 2024 Page 7
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Summary of LOS Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

LOS Impact Comparison – Option 1
Intersection #3 - North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue The intersection of North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue was identified as an impact for the D/SEIR, and also for Option 1 during the PM peak hour. In the D/SEIR, adding additional left turn lanes to the impacted intersection under 2040 Plus D/SEIR Project conditions were proposed as a mitigation to address impacts to intersection operations. However, the addition of left turn lanes would require that both roads be widened. Due to roadway right-of-way constraints on North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue, the addition of more travel lanes is not feasible. Therefore, no additional improvements would be feasible to address this significant impact, and it remains significant and unavoidable.

Level of service conditions during the PM peak hour under Option 1 exhibit the same impact as the D/SEIR which could be mitigated using the same proposed mitigation to achieve an LOS E with 56 seconds of delay. Since the mitigation was determined to be infeasible, the same condition would remain with Option

1. Therefore, no new or significant or substantial increase in an impact will occur with Option 1.

Intersection #14 – Isabel Avenue and Gateway Ave-Bart Parking (North) The intersection of Isabel Avenue and Gateway Ave-Bart Parking (North) is identified as impacted for Option 1 during the AM peak hour. This was not identified as an impact for the D/SEIR. However, since this is a new intersection, and detailed traffic operations were evaluated at this location for the Isabel Crossing study1
, the mitigation to reduce the impact is to configure the intersection per the Isabel Crossing traffic study and optimize the cycle length and splits. This reduces the LOS to C with 34.7 seconds of delay in the AM peak, and LOS C with 28.9 seconds of delay in the PM peak, resulting in no new or significant or substantial increase in an impact with Option 1.

Mitigated LOS calculations for Option 1 are provided in Appendix C for AM peak, and Appendix D for PM peak.

LOS Assessment - Option 2
Table 5 summarizes the results for the D/SEIR compared to Option 2 for the AM peak hour, while Table 6 summarizes the results for the D/SEIR compared to Option 2 for the PM peak hour. Detailed LOS calculations for Option 2 – AM Peak are provided in Appendix E, and PM Peak in Appendix F. 1 Livermore Isabel Project – Focused Transportation Analysis, December 8, 2023, and related updated memos, prepared by TJKM Engineers.

EXHIBIT D
2024
June 20, 2024 Page 8
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Summary of LOS Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 5: Intersection Level of Service - 2040 Cumulative Plus SEIR Project compared to 2040 Option 2 - AM Peak Hour
# Name Control Standard 2040 Plus D/SEIR
Project
2040 Plus Option2
Project
V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
1 Isabel Avenue & Airway
Boulevard
Signal Exempt* 0.93 41.5 D 0.85 36.7 D
2 Murrieta Boulevard & Portola
Avenue
Signal Mid D 0.71 15.1 B 0.7 14.4 B
3 Livermore Avenue & Portola
Avenue
Signal Mid D 0.81 40.1 D 0.83 41.8 D
4 I-580 WB Ramps & Isabel Avenue Signal E 0.80 16.1 B 0.76 14.1 B 5 I-580 EB Ramps & Isabel Avenue Signal E 0.44 7.6 A 0.44 6.0 A 6 I-580 WB Ramps & Airway
Boulevard
Signal E 0.76 12.4 B 0.69 10.7 B
7 I-580 EB Ramps & Airway
Boulevard
Signal E 0.67 25.7 C 0.63 24.9 C
8 Isabel Avenue & Jack London
Boulevard
Signal Exempt* 0.98 53.7 D 1.00 56.7 E
9 Airway Boulevard & North
Canyons Parkway
Signal E 1.08 52.9 D 1.17 53.2 D
10 Collier Canyon Road & North
Canyons Parkway
Signal Mid D 0.59 19.1 B 0.58 18.3 B
11 Isabel Avenue & Portola Avenue Signal E 0.56 24.6 C 0.52 24.4 C 12 Rutan Drive & E. Airway
Boulevard
Signal Mid D 0.77 17.7 B 0.80 19.6 B
13 BART Access & E. Airway
Boulevard
Signal Mid D 0.84 29.9 C 0.89 32.2 C
14 Isabel Avenue & BART Parking
(North)
Signal Mid D 0.65 28.8 C 0.77 125.3 F
15 Portola Avenue & Main Street Signal Mid D 0.25 8.5 A 0.24 8.5 A 16 Sutter Street & E. Airway
Boulevard
Stop
Control
Mid D 0.40 7.2 A 0.47 6.5 A
17 Portola Avenue & E. Airway
Boulevard
Stop Mid D 0.50 10.0 B 0.51 11.2 B
18 Stealth Street & E. Airway
Boulevard
Future Mid D 0.55 12.3 B 0.60 11.2 B
19 Isabel Avenue & INP Road Future Mid D 0.54 20.2 C 0.46 25.5 C 20 Portola Avenue & Tranquility
Circle
Signal Mid D 0.57 14.2 B 0.51 14.5 B
21 Portola Avenue & Sandalwood
Drive
Stop Mid D 0.28 9.6 A 0.23 9.8 A
22 Portola Avenue & Montage
Drive/Road 3
Future Mid D 0.63 31.5 C 0.52 25.9 C
23 Portola Avenue & Road 1 Future Mid D 0.27 9.2 A 0.26 9.1 A 24 Portola Avenue & Road 2 Future Mid D 0.62 24.9 C 0.55 20.4 C 25 Portola Avenue & Road 4 Future Mid D 0.23 8.5 A 0.21 8.5 A

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2024.

EXHIBIT D
2025
June 20, 2024 Page 9
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Summary of LOS Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 6: Intersection Level of Service - 2040 Cumulative Plus D/SEIR Project compared to 2040 Option 2 - PM Peak Hour
# Name Control Standard 2040 Plus D/SEIR
Project
2040 Plus Option 2
Project
V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
1 Isabel Avenue & Airway
Boulevard
Signal Exempt* 1.00 80.9 F 0.99 78.3 E
2 Murrieta Boulevard & Portola
Avenue
Signal Mid D 0.88 36.3 D 0.8 28.3 C
3 Livermore Avenue & Portola
Avenue
Signal Mid D 0.98 70.1 E 1.03 84.3 F
4 I-580 WB Ramps & Isabel Avenue Signal E 0.64 16.8 B 0.65 16.6 B 5 I-580 EB Ramps & Isabel Avenue Signal E 0.59 5.9 A 0.58 6.4 A 6 I-580 WB Ramps & Airway
Boulevard
Signal E 0.47 7.0 A 0.40 6.6 A
7 I-580 EB Ramps & Airway
Boulevard
Signal E 0.67 41.5 D 0.65 42.2 D
8 Isabel Avenue & Jack London
Boulevard
Signal Exempt* 0.97 56.2 E 0.96 54.3 D
9 Airway Boulevard & North
Canyons Parkway
Signal E 0.73 26.8 C 0.73 30.3 C
10 Collier Canyon Road & North
Canyons Parkway
Signal Mid D 0.59 19.3 B 0.57 18.6 B
11 Isabel Avenue & Portola Avenue Signal E 0.68 27.2 C 0.61 27.0 C 12 Rutan Drive & E. Airway
Boulevard
Signal Mid D 0.66 16.3 B 0.68 17.4 B
13 BART Access & E. Airway
Boulevard
Signal Mid D 0.83 24.7 C 0.86 28.9 C
14 Isabel Avenue & BART Parking
(North)
Signal Mid D 0.77 28.8 C 0.72 30.8 C
15 Portola Avenue & Main Street Signal Mid D 0.35 10.1 B 0.31 9.6 A 16 Sutter Street & E. Airway
Boulevard
Stop
Control
Mid D 0.32 4.7 A 0.44 5.6 A
17 Portola Avenue & E. Airway
Boulevard
Stop Mid D 0.78 20.7 C 0.77 21.2 C
18 Stealth Street & E. Airway
Boulevard
Future Mid D 0.55 9.0 A 0.66 10.2 B
19 Isabel Avenue & INP Road Future Mid D 0.66 23.6 C 0.75 28.7 C 20 Portola Avenue & Tranquility
Circle
Signal Mid D 0.73 31.3 C 0.62 28.0 C
21 Portola Avenue & Sandalwood
Drive
Stop Mid D 0.39 9.8 A 0.26 10.1 B
22 Portola Avenue & Montage
Drive/Road 3
Future Mid D 0.64 24.1 C 0.57 20.6 C
23 Portola Avenue & Road 1 Future Mid D 0.33 9.4 A 0.33 9.2 A 24 Portola Avenue & Road 2 Future Mid D 0.65 26.2 C 0.59 24.5 C 25 Portola Avenue & Road 4 Future Mid D 0.37 9.7 A 0.30 9.2 A

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2024.

EXHIBIT D
2026
June 20, 2024 Page 10
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

LOS Impact Comparison – Option 2
Intersection #3 - North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue The intersection of North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue was identified as an impact for the D/SEIR, and also for Option 2 during the PM peak hour. In the D/SEIR, adding additional left turn lanes to the impacted intersection under 2040 Plus D/SEIR Project conditions were proposed as a mitigation to address impacts to intersection operations. However, the addition of left turn lanes would require that both roads be widened. Due to roadway right-of-way constraints on North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue, the addition of more travel lanes is not feasible. Therefore, no additional improvements would be feasible to address this significant impact, and it remains significant and unavoidable.

Level of service conditions during the PM peak hour under Option 2 exhibit the same impact as the SEIR which could be mitigated using the same proposed mitigation to achieve an LOS E with 62.7 seconds of delay. Since the mitigation was determined to be infeasible, the same condition would remain with Option

2. Therefore, no new or significant or substantial increase in an impact will occur with Option 2.

Intersection #14 – Isabel Avenue and Gateway Ave-Bart Parking (North) The intersection of Isabel Avenue and Gateway Ave-Bart Parking (North) is identified as impacted for Option 2 during the AM peak hour. This was not identified as an impact for the D/SEIR. However, since this is a new intersection, and detailed traffic operations were evaluated at this location for the Isabel Crossing study2
, the mitigation to reduce the impact is to configure the intersection per the Isabel Crossing traffic study and optimize the cycle length and splits. This reduces the LOS to D with 37.4 seconds of delay in the AM peak, and LOS C with 30.8 seconds of delay in the PM peak, resulting in no new or significant or substantial increase in an impact with Option 2.

Mitigated LOS calculations for Option 2 are provided in Appendix G for AM peak, and Appendix H for PM peak.

FINDINGS
Kittelson modeled the two land use options proposed by the city using the citywide INSP traffic model and extracted intersection forecasts for LOS so that the city can assess if there is a substantial increase in the environmental impact conclusions provided in D/SEIR resulting from the implementation of either rezoning option.

Overall, LOS findings suggest the rezoning options, with appropriate mitigation, would not result in new or substantially increased LOS impacts compared to the INSP D/SEIR. 2 Livermore Isabel Project – Focused Transportation Analysis, December 8, 2023, and related updated memos, prepared by TJKM Engineers.

EXHIBIT D
2027
June 20, 2024 Page 11
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Appendices Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

APPENDICES
Appendix A – 2040 Option 1 LOS Calculations – AM
Peak
2028
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 1: Isabel Ave & Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 161 455 238 344 160 300 1047 204 322 1260 17 Future Volume (vph) 1 161 455 238 344 160 300 1047 204 322 1260 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 175 495 259 374 174 326 1138 222 350 1370 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 98 0 0 80 0 0 149 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 175 397 259 374 94 326 1138 73 350 1370 6 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 18.0 33.0 14.4 31.7 45.4 15.0 30.8 30.8 13.7 29.5 29.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.1 17.4 31.8 13.8 31.1 44.2 16.0 31.8 31.8 14.7 30.5 29.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.00 0.18 0.33 0.14 0.32 0.46 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.32 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1 337 523 254 602 728 294 1682 523 525 1613 485 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.09 c0.11 c0.15 0.20 0.02 c0.18 0.22 0.10 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.00
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.51 0.75 1.01 0.62 0.12 1.10 0.67 0.14 0.66 0.84 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 47.9 35.5 28.7 41.1 27.5 14.8 40.0 27.7 22.5 38.3 30.6 23.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 900.0 1.3 6.2 61.6 1.9 0.0 84.9 1.4 0.2 3.1 4.8 0.0 Delay (s) 948.0 36.9 34.9 102.7 29.5 14.9 124.9 29.1 22.8 41.5 35.5 23.1 Level of Service F D C F C B F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 36.8 49.8 46.8 36.6
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 42.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.1 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2029
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 2: Murrieta Blvd/Driveway & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 558 114 299 1253 1 208 6 138 1 3 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 558 114 299 1253 1 208 6 138 1 3 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 3449 3433 3539 1681 1690 1583 1840
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 3449 3433 3539 1681 1690 1583 1840
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 607 124 325 1362 1 226 7 150 1 3 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 711 0 325 1363 0 118 115 23 0 4 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 10.0 30.6 8.9 8.9 8.9 0.5
Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 10.0 29.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 0.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.19 0.56 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.01
Clearance Time (s) 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1012 641 1964 260 262 245 17
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 0.09 c0.39 c0.07 0.07 c0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.50 0.69 0.45 0.43 0.09 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 16.8 19.5 8.6 20.5 20.4 19.3 26.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 2.5
Delay (s) 18.6 19.7 9.4 20.9 20.9 19.4 28.8
Level of Service B B A C C B C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.6 11.4 20.3 28.8
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.5 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2030
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 3: Livermore Ave & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 316 292 130 111 651 92 233 645 74 129 800 486 Future Volume (vph) 316 292 130 111 651 92 233 645 74 129 800 486 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3485 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3485 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 343 317 141 121 708 100 253 701 80 140 870 528 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 92 0 0 74 0 7 0 0 0 39
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 317 49 121 708 26 253 774 0 140 870 489 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 38.6 38.6 6.1 28.8 28.8 18.0 36.6 13.2 31.8 47.7 Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 39.9 38.6 6.1 30.1 28.8 18.0 35.7 13.2 30.9 45.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.36 0.35 0.06 0.27 0.26 0.16 0.32 0.12 0.28 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 493 1277 552 97 964 412 288 1125 211 989 727 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.09 c0.07 c0.20 c0.14 0.22 0.08 c0.25 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 0.22
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.24 0.08 1.24 0.73 0.06 0.87 0.68 0.66 0.87 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 44.9 24.7 24.1 52.2 36.5 30.7 45.1 32.5 46.5 38.0 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.1 0.0 171.9 2.9 0.0 24.6 1.7 7.6 9.0 2.4 Delay (s) 49.2 24.8 24.2 224.1 39.4 30.7 69.8 34.3 54.1 47.0 28.6 Level of Service D C C F D C E C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 35.1 62.6 43.0 41.3
Approach LOS D E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 45.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2031
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 4: Isabel Ave & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 814 0 494 0 610 193 105 866 443 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 814 0 494 0 610 193 105 866 443 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5058 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 5085 1583 4019 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 885 0 537 0 663 210 114 941 482
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 275
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 885 0 514 0 663 210 0 1055 207 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Free Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.4 25.4 26.6 60.0 26.6 26.6
Effective Green, g (s) 25.4 25.4 25.8 60.0 25.8 25.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.43 1.00 0.43 0.43
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1453 670 2186 1583 1728 680
v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 c0.32 0.13 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.26
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.76 0.30 0.13 0.61 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 14.7 11.2 0.0 13.2 11.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 4.7 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.1
Delay (s) 13.9 19.5 9.3 0.1 14.8 12.3
Level of Service B B A A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 16.0 7.1 14.0
Approach LOS A B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2032
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 5: Isabel Ave & I-580 EB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 287 0 311 0 0 0 0 835 421 0 1235 483 Future Volume (vph) 287 0 311 0 0 0 0 835 421 0 1235 483 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 312 0 338 0 0 0 0 908 458 0 1342 525
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 312 0 258 0 0 0 0 908 458 0 1342 525 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 10.1 40.9 60.0 40.9 60.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.1 10.1 41.9 60.0 41.9 60.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.70 1.00 0.70 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 577 469 3551 1583 3551 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.18 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.09 0.29 0.33
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.55 0.25 0.28 0.37 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 22.8 22.8 3.3 0.0 3.7 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4
Delay (s) 23.3 23.6 3.4 0.4 3.9 0.4
Level of Service C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.5 0.0 2.4 2.9
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2033
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 6: Airway Blvd & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 66 25 668 0 1279 345 0 362 683 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 66 25 668 0 1279 345 0 362 683 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1722 2787 3539 1583 4587
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1722 2787 3539 1583 4587
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 72 27 726 0 1390 375 0 393 742
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 170 0 337 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 38 61 687 0 1390 205 0 798 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 28.8 28.8 28.8
Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 30.1 30.1 30.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.55 0.55 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 518 531 859 1933 864 2505
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.04 c0.39 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.11 0.79 0.71 0.23 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 13.6 17.4 9.3 6.5 6.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.4 0.1 0.1
Delay (s) 13.4 13.6 22.3 10.7 6.7 6.9
Level of Service B B C B A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 21.3 9.8 6.9
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2034
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 7: Airway Blvd & I-580 EB Ramps/Kitty Hawk Rd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 684 215 431 56 34 106 61 587 215 89 206 151 Future Volume (vph) 684 215 431 56 34 106 61 587 215 89 206 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 2.7 4.0 2.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3397 1770 3315 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3397 1770 3315 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 743 234 468 61 37 115 66 638 234 97 224 164 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 348 0 0 90 0 43 0 0 117 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 743 234 120 61 37 25 66 829 0 97 271 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 20.1 20.1 10.2 10.2 14.5 10.6 27.5 4.3 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 20.1 20.1 9.8 9.8 13.7 10.1 28.8 4.3 22.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.37 0.06 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 883 479 407 222 233 366 228 1252 97 955 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.13 c0.03 0.02 0.00 0.04 c0.24 c0.05 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.48 0.29 0.27 0.15 0.06 0.28 0.66 1.00 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 24.6 23.3 30.9 30.4 26.8 30.7 20.5 36.9 21.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.3 91.3 0.2 Delay (s) 34.5 24.9 23.4 31.1 30.5 26.9 31.0 21.9 128.2 21.7 Level of Service C C C C C C C C F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 29.3 28.7 22.6 43.0
Approach LOS C C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.1 Sum of lost time (s) 15.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2035
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 8: Isabel Ave & Jack London Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 64 46 410 781 404 379 988 99 160 1403 303 Future Volume (vph) 33 64 46 410 781 404 379 988 99 160 1403 303 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 70 50 446 849 439 412 1074 108 174 1525 329 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 53 0 0 68 0 0 108
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 70 8 446 849 386 412 1074 40 174 1525 221 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.9 17.1 17.1 17.9 31.1 41.8 12.9 39.1 39.1 10.7 36.9 36.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 17.1 17.1 17.9 31.1 41.8 12.9 39.1 39.1 10.7 36.9 36.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.29 0.39 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 126 570 255 298 1038 703 417 1875 583 346 1770 551 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 c0.25 c0.24 0.06 c0.12 0.21 0.05 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.19 0.03 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.12 0.03 1.49 0.81 0.54 0.98 0.57 0.06 0.50 0.86 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 38.0 37.4 44.0 34.8 24.8 46.4 26.7 21.6 45.1 32.1 26.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.0 0.0 240.4 5.1 0.8 40.4 0.4 0.0 1.1 4.5 0.4 Delay (s) 50.9 38.1 37.5 284.4 39.9 25.6 86.9 27.1 21.7 46.2 36.7 26.6 Level of Service D D D F D C F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.8 99.2 42.2 35.9
Approach LOS D F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 57.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 21.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2036
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 9: Airway Blvd/Driveway & N Canyons Pkwy 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 95 50 883 909 0 725 0 1132 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 95 50 883 909 0 725 0 1132 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 103 54 960 988 0 788 0 1230 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 103 6 960 988 0 0 788 1095 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 41.0 55.0 40.0 81.0
Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 43.0 57.0 39.8 85.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.55 0.39 0.83
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 184 1433 1030 683 2354
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.28 c0.53 c0.45 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.03 0.66 0.95 1.15 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 40.3 24.2 21.8 31.6 2.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 1.2 18.7 85.2 0.1
Delay (s) 41.7 40.4 25.4 40.6 116.8 2.6
Level of Service D D C D F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.2 33.1 47.2 0.0
Approach LOS D C D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 40.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 10: Collier Canyon Rd & N Canyons Pkwy/Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 233 328 40 279 1078 40 2 3 38 57 5 8 Future Volume (vph) 233 328 40 279 1078 40 2 3 38 57 5 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1602 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1602 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 253 357 43 303 1172 43 2 3 41 62 5 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 22 0 36 0 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 253 357 17 303 1172 21 2 8 0 62 5 1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 26.1 26.1 16.0 32.4 32.4 1.0 7.4 3.0 9.4 9.4 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 27.4 27.4 16.0 33.7 33.7 1.0 8.4 3.0 8.8 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.40 0.40 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 486 1415 633 413 1741 778 25 196 77 239 203 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.10 c0.17 c0.33 0.00 c0.01 c0.04 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.25 0.02 0.73 0.67 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.80 0.02 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 13.7 12.4 24.2 13.2 8.9 33.2 26.4 32.4 26.0 26.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 28.2 13.8 12.4 30.9 14.2 8.9 34.6 26.5 76.2 26.1 26.0 Level of Service C B B C B A C C E C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.3 17.4 26.9 67.0
Approach LOS B B C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2038
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 11: Isabel Ave/Campus Hill Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 310 197 253 645 64 479 270 101 11 76 2 Future Volume (vph) 2 310 197 253 645 64 479 270 101 11 76 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3491 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3491 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 337 214 275 701 70 521 293 110 12 83 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 162 0 6 0 0 0 63 0 0 2
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 337 52 275 765 0 521 293 47 12 83 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.5 18.6 18.6 9.6 26.7 20.1 33.6 33.6 1.5 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g (s) 1.5 19.9 19.9 9.6 28.0 20.1 34.9 34.9 1.5 14.5 14.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.34 0.25 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 32 859 677 584 1193 842 1508 674 32 626 280 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.10 c0.06 c0.22 c0.15 c0.08 0.01 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.39 0.07 0.47 0.64 0.61 0.19 0.06 0.37 0.13 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 39.5 25.9 23.9 33.7 22.7 27.4 14.7 13.8 39.7 28.4 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 39.8 26.2 23.9 33.9 23.9 28.4 14.7 13.9 42.4 28.4 27.7 Level of Service D C C C C C B B D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.4 26.5 22.3 30.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.9 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2039
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 12: Rutan Dr/BART W. Access & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 205 451 31 15 679 128 89 10 6 25 1 28 Future Volume (vph) 205 451 31 15 679 128 89 10 6 25 1 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1845 1770 1818 1770 1754 1770 1592 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.74 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1845 1770 1818 1373 1754 1389 1592 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 223 490 34 16 738 139 97 11 7 27 1 30
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 0 26 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 223 522 0 16 870 0 97 12 0 27 5 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 55.6 1.4 43.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 55.6 1.4 43.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.70 0.02 0.55 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1282 30 995 188 241 190 218
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.28 0.01 c0.48 0.01 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.40 0.53 0.87 0.51 0.04 0.14 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 5.1 38.9 15.7 32.0 29.9 30.3 29.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.2 0.9 9.0 5.8 2.3 0.0 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 43.1 6.1 44.4 17.2 34.4 30.0 30.6 29.8
Level of Service D A D B C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.1 17.7 33.7 30.2
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2040
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 13: E. Airway Blvd & BART E. Access 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 103 288 91 11 567 257 241 173 12 51 13 14 Future Volume (vph) 103 288 91 11 567 257 241 173 12 51 13 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1796 1770 1776 1770 1845 1770 1718 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.50 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1796 1770 1776 1375 1845 949 1718 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 112 313 99 12 616 279 262 188 13 55 14 15 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 21 0 0 3 0 0 11 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 400 0 12 874 0 262 198 0 55 18 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.3 48.2 0.8 39.7 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.3 48.2 0.8 39.7 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.60 0.01 0.50 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 1082 17 881 326 438 225 408
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.22 0.01 c0.49 0.11 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.36 0.70 0.99 0.80 0.45 0.24 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 8.1 39.4 19.9 28.7 26.0 24.6 23.4 Progression Factor 0.86 0.39 1.06 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 0.9 74.4 26.0 13.3 0.7 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 31.7 4.1 116.3 46.6 42.0 26.7 25.2 23.5
Level of Service C A F D D C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.0 47.5 35.4 24.6
Approach LOS B D D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2041
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 14: Isabel Ave & Gateway Blvd./N. BART Parking 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 307 310 25 89 392 665 47 26 663 57 Future Volume (vph) 5 5 307 310 25 89 392 665 47 26 663 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1512 1504 1770 1644 3433 3504 1770 3497 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1512 1504 1770 1644 3433 3504 1770 3497 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 334 337 27 97 426 723 51 28 721 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 133 138 0 72 0 0 5 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 36 32 337 52 0 426 769 0 28 777 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 13.5 13.5 5.2 18.1 12.8 35.0 1.7 23.9 Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 13.5 13.5 5.2 18.1 12.8 35.0 1.7 23.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.25 0.18 0.49 0.02 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 285 284 128 416 615 1717 42 1170
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.02 c0.19 c0.03 c0.12 0.22 0.02 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.12 0.11 2.63 0.12 0.69 0.44 0.66 0.66
Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 24.0 23.9 33.1 20.5 27.4 11.8 34.5 20.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.9 0.2 0.1 756.7 0.1 3.3 0.8 33.3 2.9 Delay (s) 50.1 24.2 24.1 789.8 20.6 30.8 12.7 67.9 23.2 Level of Service D C C F C C B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.5 582.9 19.1 24.8
Approach LOS C F B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 113.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2042
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 15: Main Street & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 419 22 0 1276 0 10
Future Volume (Veh/h) 419 22 0 1276 0 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 455 24 0 1387 0 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 366 483
pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.85 0.95
vC, conflicting volume 479 929 164
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 284 0 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1216 868 1034
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 182 182 115 462 462 462 11
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 24 0 0 0 11
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1034
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2043
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 16: Sutter St & E. Airway Blvd. 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 318 18 56 639 48 57
Future Volume (vph) 318 18 56 639 48 57
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1770 1863 1687
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 1849 1001 1863 1687
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 346 20 61 695 52 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 47 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 365 0 61 695 67 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 85.9 85.9 85.9 11.1
Effective Green, g (s) 85.9 85.9 85.9 11.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1512 818 1524 178
v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.37 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.07 0.45 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 2.1 1.8 2.7 43.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.3
Delay (s) 2.5 1.8 2.9 45.0
Level of Service A A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.5 2.8 45.0
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2044
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 17: Portola Ave & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 280 633 826 400 62
Future Volume (vph) 37 280 633 826 400 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.88 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1629 1504 3433 3539 3468
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1629 1504 3433 3539 3468
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 40 304 688 898 435 67
RTOR Reduction (vph) 115 80 0 0 20 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 90 688 898 482 0
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 27.3 16.0 36.0 16.0
Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 27.3 16.0 36.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.31 0.70 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 231 800 1070 2483 1081
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.06 c0.20 0.25 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.11 0.64 0.36 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 19.5 5.9 15.1 3.0 14.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.2
Delay (s) 20.1 6.0 16.5 3.1 14.4
Level of Service C A B A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.1 8.9 14.4
Approach LOS B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2045
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 18: Stealth & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 279 72 44 643 192 57
Future Volume (vph) 279 72 44 643 192 57
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1811 1770 1863 1738
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1811 950 1863 1738
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 303 78 48 699 209 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 10 0 0 0 14 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 371 0 48 699 257 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 55.2 55.2 55.2 16.8
Effective Green, g (s) 55.2 55.2 55.2 16.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1249 655 1285 364
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.38 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.07 0.54 0.70
Uniform Delay, d1 4.8 4.0 6.1 29.3
Progression Factor 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.4 6.1
Delay (s) 4.8 4.0 6.6 35.4
Level of Service A A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 4.8 6.4 35.4
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2046
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 19: Isabel Ave & INP Road 3/INP Road 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 24 153 103 41 29 196 548 15 8 490 28 Future Volume (vph) 2 24 153 103 41 29 196 548 15 8 490 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1621 1770 1747 1770 3525 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1621 1770 1747 1770 3525 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 26 166 112 45 32 213 596 16 9 533 30
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 131 0 0 23 0 0 2 0 0 0 21
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 61 0 112 54 0 213 610 0 9 533 9 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 13.9 4.3 17.7 12.3 30.3 0.5 18.5 18.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 13.9 4.3 17.7 12.3 30.3 0.5 18.5 18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.07 0.27 0.19 0.47 0.01 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 346 117 475 334 1643 13 1007 450
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.04 c0.06 c0.03 c0.12 0.17 0.01 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.17 0.95 0.11 0.63 0.37 0.69 0.52 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 20.8 30.2 17.7 24.2 11.2 32.1 19.5 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 0.2 69.0 0.1 3.9 0.1 96.2 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 37.5 21.1 99.3 17.8 28.2 11.3 128.4 20.0 16.7 Level of Service D C F B C B F C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.2 66.1 15.7 21.6
Approach LOS C E B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2047
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 20: Tranquility Circle/Cayetano Park & Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 331 91 40 762 0 200 0 37 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 331 91 40 762 0 200 0 37 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3425 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3425 1770 3539 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 360 99 43 828 0 217 0 40 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 435 0 43 828 0 217 13 0 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 1.5 25.5 8.3 15.9
Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 1.5 25.5 8.3 15.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.03 0.52 0.17 0.32
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1386 53 1826 297 509
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.02 c0.23 c0.12 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.81 0.45 0.73 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 10.0 23.8 7.5 19.4 11.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 59.6 0.1 8.9 0.0
Delay (s) 10.1 83.4 7.7 28.4 11.4
Level of Service B F A C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.1 11.4 25.7 0.0
Approach LOS B B C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2048
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 21: Sandalwood Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 359 10 0 802 0 66
Future Volume (Veh/h) 359 10 0 802 0 66
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 390 11 0 872 0 72
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 889
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 401 832 201
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 401 832 201
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 91
cM capacity (veh/h) 1154 308 807
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 260 141 436 436 0 72
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 11 0 0 0 72
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 807
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 7
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.9
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2049
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 22: Road 3/Montage Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 389 29 77 1008 29 161 6 18 29 79 107 Future Volume (vph) 11 389 29 77 1008 29 161 6 18 29 79 107 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5032 1770 5064 1770 1656 1770 1702 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5032 1770 5064 1770 1656 1770 1702 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 423 32 84 1096 32 175 7 20 32 86 116 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 13 0 0 77 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 445 0 84 1125 0 175 14 0 32 125 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 16.7 4.0 20.2 9.4 21.8 1.7 14.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 16.7 4.0 20.2 9.4 21.8 1.7 14.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.28 0.07 0.34 0.16 0.36 0.03 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 1395 117 1699 276 599 49 398
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.09 c0.05 c0.22 c0.10 0.01 0.02 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.31 0.71 0.66 0.63 0.02 0.65 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 29.8 17.2 27.5 17.0 23.7 12.3 28.9 19.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 164.6 0.1 18.8 0.9 4.7 0.0 27.1 0.4 Delay (s) 194.4 17.3 46.4 18.0 28.4 12.3 56.0 19.5
Level of Service F B D B C B E B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.9 20.0 26.3 24.5
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2050
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 23: INP Road 1 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 8 0 1397 0 6
Future Volume (Veh/h) 415 8 0 1397 0 6
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 451 9 0 1518 0 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 418 404
pX, platoon unblocked 0.80
vC, conflicting volume 460 962 155
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 460 69 155
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1097 741 863
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 180 180 99 506 506 506 7
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 9 0 0 0 7
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 863
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2051
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 24: Shea Center Drive & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 389 21 116 1131 29 160 6 24 28 79 106 Future Volume (vph) 11 389 21 116 1131 29 160 6 24 28 79 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5046 1770 5066 1770 1643 1770 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5046 1770 5066 1770 1643 1770 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 423 23 126 1229 32 174 7 26 30 86 115 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 17 0 0 64 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 440 0 126 1258 0 174 16 0 30 137 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 17.5 7.6 24.6 11.0 24.4 1.7 15.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 17.5 7.6 24.6 11.0 24.4 1.7 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.26 0.11 0.37 0.16 0.36 0.03 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 1314 200 1854 289 596 44 382
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.09 c0.07 c0.25 c0.10 0.01 0.02 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.33 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.02 0.68 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 20.1 28.4 17.9 26.0 13.7 32.4 21.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 207.3 0.1 6.3 1.0 3.5 0.0 35.6 0.5 Delay (s) 240.6 20.2 34.7 18.9 29.5 13.7 68.1 22.5
Level of Service F C C B C B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 26.0 20.4 27.0 28.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2052
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 1 25: INP Road 2 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 432 4 0 1114 0 3
Future Volume (Veh/h) 432 4 0 1114 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 470 4 0 1211 0 3
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 397 579
pX, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.98 0.97
vC, conflicting volume 474 876 159
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 330 553 3
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1184 453 1042
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 188 188 98 404 404 404 3
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 4 0 0 0 3
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1042
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2053
June 20, 2024 Page 12
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Appendices Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix B – 2040 Option 1 LOS Calculations – PM
Peak

EXHIBIT D
2054
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 1: Isabel Ave & Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 9 173 422 291 189 282 463 994 267 310 1321 18 Future Volume (vph) 9 173 422 291 189 282 463 994 267 310 1321 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 188 459 316 205 307 503 1080 290 337 1436 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 56 0 0 50 0 0 172 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 188 403 316 205 257 503 1080 118 337 1436 8 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 23.3 50.3 14.4 36.9 64.1 27.0 55.9 55.9 27.2 56.1 56.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.2 22.7 49.1 13.8 36.3 62.9 28.0 56.9 56.9 28.2 57.1 56.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.00 0.16 0.35 0.10 0.26 0.45 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.41 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2 302 555 174 483 711 354 2066 643 691 2073 634 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.10 c0.14 c0.18 0.11 0.07 c0.28 0.21 0.10 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.01
v/c Ratio 5.00 0.62 0.72 1.81 0.42 0.36 1.42 0.52 0.18 0.48 0.69 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 69.9 54.6 39.5 63.1 43.1 25.3 56.0 31.3 26.6 49.5 34.2 25.2 Progression Factor 1.07 0.81 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2493.2 3.3 4.0 388.9 0.6 0.3 205.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.9 0.0 Delay (s) 2568.2 47.7 31.6 452.0 43.7 25.6 261.2 32.2 27.2 50.0 36.1 25.3 Level of Service F D C F D C F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 74.9 192.8 92.9 38.6
Approach LOS E F F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 87.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2055
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 2: Murrieta Blvd/Driveway & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 1091 249 239 911 2 201 2 488 7 1 3 Future Volume (vph) 2 1091 249 239 911 2 201 2 488 7 1 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3440 3433 3538 1681 1687 1583 1742 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3440 3433 3538 1681 1687 1583 1742 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 1186 271 260 990 2 218 2 530 8 1 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 306 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1444 0 260 992 0 113 107 224 0 9 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 52.7 11.7 63.7 17.4 17.4 17.4 0.7 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 51.8 11.7 62.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 0.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.52 0.12 0.63 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 1781 401 2221 282 283 265 12
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.42 c0.08 0.28 0.07 0.06 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.14
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.81 0.64 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.84 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 49.3 20.0 42.1 9.6 37.1 36.9 40.3 49.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.3 20.3 118.8 Delay (s) 51.7 22.7 44.8 9.6 37.4 37.2 60.6 168.4
Level of Service D C D A D D E F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.8 16.9 53.8 168.4
Approach LOS C B D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 27.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2056
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 3: Livermore Ave & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 837 654 180 42 391 70 270 729 194 224 995 505 Future Volume (vph) 837 654 180 42 391 70 270 729 194 224 995 505 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3428 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3428 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 910 711 196 46 425 76 293 792 211 243 1082 549 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 137 0 0 63 0 16 0 0 0 54
Lane Group Flow (vph) 910 711 59 46 425 13 293 987 0 243 1082 495 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 37.8 37.8 8.1 21.9 21.9 23.0 45.1 21.0 43.1 67.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 39.1 37.8 8.1 23.2 21.9 23.0 44.2 21.0 42.2 65.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.31 0.30 0.06 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.35 0.16 0.33 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 643 1081 467 112 641 270 318 1183 290 1166 807 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 c0.20 0.03 c0.12 c0.17 0.29 0.14 c0.31 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 0.20
v/c Ratio 1.41 0.65 0.12 0.41 0.66 0.04 0.92 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 52.0 38.6 33.0 57.6 48.7 44.3 51.6 38.5 51.8 41.4 22.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 195.9 1.4 0.1 2.4 2.5 0.0 30.8 5.2 18.6 12.5 1.3 Delay (s) 247.9 40.0 33.1 60.0 51.3 44.4 82.4 43.7 70.4 53.9 23.7 Level of Service F D C E D D F D E D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 143.4 51.1 52.5 47.2
Approach LOS F D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 80.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 128.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2057
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 4: Isabel Ave & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 843 0 596 0 783 89 0 821 598 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 843 0 596 0 783 89 0 821 598
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 916 0 648 0 851 97 0 892 650
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 361
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 916 0 568 0 851 97 0 892 289 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Free NA Prot
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.1 30.1 31.9 70.0 31.9 31.9
Effective Green, g (s) 30.1 30.1 31.1 70.0 31.1 31.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.44 1.00 0.44 0.44
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1476 680 2259 1583 2259 703
v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 c0.36 0.17 0.18 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.83 0.37 0.06 0.39 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 15.5 17.7 12.9 0.0 13.1 13.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 8.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.7
Delay (s) 16.0 26.1 13.4 0.0 13.6 14.9
Level of Service B C B A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 20.2 12.0 14.2
Approach LOS A C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2058
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 5: Isabel Ave & I-580 EB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 396 0 359 0 0 0 0 847 731 0 1121 671 Future Volume (vph) 396 0 359 0 0 0 0 847 731 0 1121 671 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 430 0 390 0 0 0 0 921 795 0 1218 729
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 430 0 305 0 0 0 0 921 795 0 1218 729 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.2 11.2 34.8 55.0 34.8 55.0
Effective Green, g (s) 11.2 11.2 35.8 55.0 35.8 55.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.65 1.00 0.65 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 699 567 3309 1583 3309 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.18 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.50 0.46
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.53 0.27 0.50 0.36 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 19.9 19.5 4.0 0.0 4.4 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.9
Delay (s) 21.0 20.0 4.3 1.1 4.7 0.9
Level of Service C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.6 0.0 2.8 3.3
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2059
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 6: Airway Blvd & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 137 1 194 0 723 400 0 790 778 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 137 1 194 0 723 400 0 790 778 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1686 2787 3539 1583 4707
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1686 2787 3539 1583 4707
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 149 1 211 0 786 435 0 859 846
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 0 113 0 165 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 79 71 31 0 786 322 0 1540 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.2 10.2 10.2 50.5 50.5 50.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.2 10.2 10.2 51.8 51.8 51.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.74 0.74
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 245 406 2618 1171 3483
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.04 0.22 c0.33
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.28 0.07 0.30 0.27 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 26.6 25.8 3.0 2.9 3.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 2.35 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.4
Delay (s) 27.0 26.9 25.8 2.6 7.4 3.9
Level of Service C C C A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 26.3 4.3 3.9
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2060
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 7: Airway Blvd & I-580 EB Ramps/Kitty Hawk Rd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 542 236 366 98 111 216 124 484 198 144 420 353 Future Volume (vph) 542 236 366 98 111 216 124 484 198 144 420 353 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 2.7 4.0 2.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3385 1770 3297 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3385 1770 3297 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 589 257 398 107 121 235 135 526 215 157 457 384 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 297 0 0 83 0 26 0 0 106 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 589 257 101 107 121 152 135 715 0 157 735 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.7 30.7 30.7 15.3 15.3 31.7 19.3 61.6 16.4 58.7 Effective Green, g (s) 30.7 30.7 30.7 14.9 14.9 30.9 18.8 62.9 16.4 60.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.13 0.45 0.12 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 752 408 347 188 198 399 237 1520 207 1413 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.14 0.06 c0.06 0.04 0.08 c0.21 c0.09 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.62 0.28 0.56 0.61 0.38 0.56 0.47 0.75 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 51.5 49.5 45.5 59.4 59.7 46.4 56.8 26.9 59.8 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.83 1.04 0.93 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 2.1 0.1 2.3 3.8 0.2 0.8 0.4 12.2 1.2 Delay (s) 56.4 51.6 45.7 61.8 63.6 46.6 46.8 22.8 74.6 28.8 Level of Service E D D E E D D C E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 52.0 54.6 26.5 36.0
Approach LOS D D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 41.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2061
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 8: Isabel Ave & Jack London Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 242 734 260 222 238 244 101 1296 679 304 1603 82 Future Volume (vph) 242 734 260 222 238 244 101 1296 679 304 1603 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 263 798 283 241 259 265 110 1409 738 330 1742 89 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 113 0 0 37 0 0 194 0 0 52
Lane Group Flow (vph) 263 798 170 241 259 228 110 1409 544 330 1742 37 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 33.8 33.8 17.7 36.5 52.6 8.6 49.7 49.7 16.1 57.2 57.2 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 33.8 33.8 17.7 36.5 52.6 8.6 49.7 49.7 16.1 57.2 57.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.26 0.38 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 371 863 386 226 932 661 213 1824 568 399 2100 653 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.23 c0.14 0.07 c0.04 0.03 0.28 c0.10 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.10 c0.34 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.92 0.44 1.06 0.27 0.34 0.51 0.77 0.95 0.82 0.82 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 59.6 51.1 44.3 60.4 40.5 30.6 62.9 39.3 43.3 59.8 36.2 24.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 15.3 0.8 78.5 0.1 0.3 2.1 2.0 27.3 13.1 2.8 0.0 Delay (s) 65.7 66.4 45.1 138.9 40.6 30.9 65.0 41.4 70.7 72.9 39.1 24.4 Level of Service E E D F D C E D E E D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 61.8 68.2 52.1 43.7
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 53.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 138.5 Sum of lost time (s) 21.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2062
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 9: Airway Blvd/Driveway & N Canyons Pkwy 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 775 297 1178 40 0 99 0 752 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 775 297 1178 40 0 99 0 752 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 842 323 1280 43 0 108 0 817 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 279 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 842 97 1280 43 0 0 108 538 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 33.0 55.5 92.5 19.5 75.0
Effective Green, g (s) 35.0 35.0 57.5 94.5 19.3 79.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.48 0.79 0.16 0.66
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1032 461 1644 1467 284 1881
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.37 0.02 c0.06 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.21 0.77 0.02 0.38 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 39.5 32.0 25.9 2.7 45.0 8.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.1 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.8 0.0
Delay (s) 46.6 33.1 28.3 2.8 45.8 8.7
Level of Service D C C A D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 42.8 27.5 13.0 0.0
Approach LOS D C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2063
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 10: Collier Canyon Rd & N Canyons Pkwy/Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 117 1129 109 61 351 44 13 6 330 39 4 90 Future Volume (vph) 117 1129 109 61 351 44 13 6 330 39 4 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1589 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1589 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 1227 118 66 382 48 14 7 359 42 4 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 64 0 0 27 0 217 0 0 0 73
Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 1227 54 66 382 21 14 149 0 42 4 25 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 32.0 32.0 4.3 29.8 29.8 1.2 16.5 3.4 18.7 18.7 Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 33.3 33.3 4.3 31.1 31.1 1.2 17.5 3.4 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.24 0.05 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 309 1632 730 105 1524 681 29 385 83 467 396 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.35 c0.04 0.11 0.01 c0.09 c0.02 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.75 0.07 0.62 0.25 0.03 0.48 0.38 0.50 0.00 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 31.0 16.0 10.8 33.1 13.1 11.8 35.1 22.8 33.5 20.3 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 2.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.6 4.7 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 31.9 18.0 10.8 44.3 13.2 11.8 47.3 23.5 38.3 20.3 20.6 Level of Service C B B D B B D C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.6 17.2 24.3 25.8
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.2 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2064
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 11: Isabel Ave/Campus Hill Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 927 409 409 444 10 290 225 93 3 183 6 Future Volume (vph) 6 927 409 409 444 10 290 225 93 3 183 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3527 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3527 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 1008 445 445 483 11 315 245 101 3 199 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 200 0 1 0 0 0 74 0 0 6
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 1008 245 445 493 0 315 245 27 3 199 1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 39.2 39.2 12.9 50.5 11.1 24.8 24.8 1.6 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 40.5 40.5 12.9 51.8 11.1 26.1 26.1 1.6 14.8 14.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.53 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 1476 1162 662 1881 392 951 425 29 539 241 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 c0.09 0.14 c0.09 0.07 0.00 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.68 0.21 0.67 0.26 0.80 0.25 0.06 0.10 0.36 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 47.1 23.0 18.0 40.0 12.2 41.9 27.8 26.4 47.0 36.9 34.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 1.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 10.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 48.7 24.3 18.1 42.2 12.3 52.6 28.0 26.4 47.6 37.3 34.9 Level of Service D C B D B D C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.6 26.5 39.5 37.4
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.1 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2065
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 12: Rutan Dr/BART W. Access & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 673 51 40 499 27 47 1 1 135 24 227 Future Volume (vph) 25 673 51 40 499 27 47 1 1 135 24 227 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1843 1770 1849 1770 1723 1770 1610 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.75 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1843 1770 1849 521 1723 1409 1610 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 732 55 43 542 29 51 1 1 147 26 247
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 203 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 784 0 43 569 0 51 1 0 147 70 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 49.7 4.0 49.9 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 49.7 4.0 49.9 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.62 0.05 0.62 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 84 1144 88 1153 93 307 251 287
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.43 0.02 c0.31 0.00 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.10
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.68 0.48 0.49 0.54 0.00 0.58 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 36.8 9.9 37.0 8.1 29.9 26.9 30.1 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 3.3 3.7 1.3 6.4 0.0 3.4 0.4
Delay (s) 39.0 13.3 41.0 8.5 36.3 27.0 33.5 28.6
Level of Service D B D A D C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 14.2 10.7 36.0 30.3
Approach LOS B B D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2066
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 13: E. Airway Blvd & BART E. Access 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 13 488 308 30 286 54 167 12 13 270 107 113 Future Volume (vph) 13 488 308 30 286 54 167 12 13 270 107 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1755 1770 1818 1770 1718 1770 1719 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.73 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1755 1770 1818 842 1718 1378 1719 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 530 335 33 311 59 182 13 14 293 116 123 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 8 0 0 11 0 0 50 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 839 0 33 362 0 182 17 0 293 190 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 45.6 2.4 44.9 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 45.6 2.4 44.9 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.57 0.03 0.56 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 68 1000 53 1020 210 429 344 429
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.48 c0.02 0.20 0.01 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.83 0.62 0.35 0.86 0.03 0.85 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 37.2 14.1 38.3 9.6 28.7 22.7 28.5 25.2 Progression Factor 1.16 0.81 1.09 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 6.7 20.1 0.9 29.1 0.0 17.9 0.7 Delay (s) 44.5 18.3 62.0 10.8 57.8 22.7 46.5 26.0
Level of Service D B E B E C D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.8 15.0 53.3 37.3
Approach LOS B B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 26.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2067
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 14: Isabel Ave & Gateway Blvd./N. BART Parking 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 87 45 448 125 23 93 443 601 335 167 988 37 Future Volume (vph) 87 45 448 125 23 93 443 601 335 167 988 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1552 1504 1770 1639 3433 3349 1770 3520 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1552 1504 1770 1639 3433 3349 1770 3520 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 49 487 136 25 101 482 653 364 182 1074 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 192 227 0 90 0 0 86 0 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 81 36 136 36 0 482 931 0 182 1111 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 10.8 10.8 6.1 8.3 15.5 38.9 7.2 30.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.6 10.8 10.8 6.1 8.3 15.5 38.9 7.2 30.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.20 0.49 0.09 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 192 212 205 136 172 673 1649 161 1363 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.05 c0.08 0.02 c0.14 0.28 c0.10 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.38 0.17 1.00 0.20 0.71 0.56 1.13 0.81
Uniform Delay, d1 33.1 31.0 30.1 36.4 32.3 29.6 14.0 35.9 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.1 0.4 77.1 0.6 3.6 0.4 110.2 3.8 Delay (s) 35.1 32.2 30.5 113.6 32.9 33.3 14.5 146.1 25.5 Level of Service D C C F C C B F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.9 74.8 20.5 42.4
Approach LOS C E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 34.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2068
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 15: Main Street & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1368 101 0 592 0 62
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1368 101 0 592 0 62
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1487 110 0 643 0 67
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 366 483
pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.75 0.74
vC, conflicting volume 1597 1756 551
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 582 691 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 732 284 804
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 595 595 407 214 214 214 67
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 110 0 0 0 67
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 804
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.9
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2069
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 16: Sutter St & E. Airway Blvd. 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 519 62 154 327 33 56
Future Volume (vph) 519 62 154 327 33 56
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1836 1770 1863 1674
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1836 724 1863 1674
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 564 67 167 355 36 61
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 54 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 628 0 167 355 43 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 58.3 58.3 58.3 8.7
Effective Green, g (s) 58.3 58.3 58.3 8.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1427 562 1448 194
v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.19 c0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.23
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.29 0.24 0.22
Uniform Delay, d1 2.8 2.4 2.2 30.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.5
Delay (s) 3.8 2.7 2.3 30.6
Level of Service A A A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 3.8 2.4 30.6
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 5.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2070
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 17: Portola Ave & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 123 775 337 807 854 144
Future Volume (vph) 123 775 337 807 854 144
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.89 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1637 1504 3433 3539 3462
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1637 1504 3433 3539 3462
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 134 842 366 877 928 157
RTOR Reduction (vph) 109 34 0 0 16 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 387 446 366 877 1069 0
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.3 38.0 11.7 48.0 32.3
Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 38.0 11.7 48.0 32.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.49 0.15 0.61 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 466 729 512 2169 1428
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.30 0.11 0.25 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.61 0.71 0.40 0.74
Uniform Delay, d1 26.2 14.7 31.7 7.7 19.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 11.9 1.5 4.7 0.1 2.1
Delay (s) 38.1 16.2 36.4 7.9 21.7
Level of Service D B D A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 27.4 16.3 21.7
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 21.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2071
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 18: Stealth & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 525 246 123 237 133 56
Future Volume (vph) 525 246 123 237 133 56
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1783 1770 1863 1727
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1783 479 1863 1727
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 571 267 134 258 145 61
RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 0 0 0 21 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 822 0 134 258 185 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 57.7 57.7 57.7 14.3
Effective Green, g (s) 57.7 57.7 57.7 14.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1285 345 1343 308
v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.14 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.28
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.38 0.19 0.59
Uniform Delay, d1 5.7 4.3 3.6 30.2
Progression Factor 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.7 0.0 3.1
Delay (s) 6.6 5.0 3.6 33.3
Level of Service A A A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 6.6 4.1 33.3
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2072
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 19: Isabel Ave & INP Road 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 44 92 224 42 54 31 222 448 111 56 926 19 Future Volume (vph) 44 92 224 42 54 31 222 448 111 56 926 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1665 1770 1761 1770 3434 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1665 1770 1761 1770 3434 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 100 243 46 59 34 241 487 121 61 1007 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 101 0 0 24 0 0 19 0 0 0 13
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 242 0 46 69 0 241 589 0 61 1007 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.9 17.5 2.9 17.5 15.3 41.8 3.7 30.2 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 2.9 17.5 2.9 17.5 15.3 41.8 3.7 30.2 30.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.21 0.04 0.21 0.19 0.51 0.05 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 62 355 62 376 330 1752 79 1304 583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.15 0.03 0.04 c0.14 0.17 0.03 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.68 0.74 0.18 0.73 0.33 0.77 0.77 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 39.1 29.6 39.1 26.3 31.3 11.8 38.6 22.8 16.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 44.2 5.2 37.5 0.2 8.0 0.1 36.3 2.9 0.0 Delay (s) 83.4 34.9 76.7 26.5 39.4 11.9 75.0 25.7 16.4
Level of Service F C E C D B E C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.8 43.1 19.7 28.3
Approach LOS D D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2073
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 20: Tranquility Circle/Cayetano Park & Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 666 329 149 598 13 236 0 62 13 0 29 Future Volume (vph) 29 666 329 149 598 13 236 0 62 13 0 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3364 1770 3528 1770 1583 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3364 1770 3528 1770 1583 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 724 358 162 650 14 257 0 67 14 0 32
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 1 0 0 48 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 1036 0 162 663 0 257 19 0 14 3 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 36.0 11.6 44.4 17.9 26.1 0.6 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 36.0 11.6 44.4 17.9 26.1 0.6 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.49 0.20 0.29 0.01 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 62 1341 227 1734 350 457 11 154
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.31 c0.09 0.19 c0.15 c0.01 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.77 0.71 0.38 0.73 0.04 1.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 23.5 37.7 14.3 33.9 23.1 44.8 36.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 2.8 10.1 0.1 7.7 0.0 373.5 0.0 Delay (s) 49.8 26.4 47.9 14.5 41.7 23.1 418.4 36.9
Level of Service D C D B D C F D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 27.1 21.0 37.8 153.0
Approach LOS C C D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2074
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 21: Sandalwood Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 731 10 0 760 0 55
Future Volume (Veh/h) 731 10 0 760 0 55
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 795 11 0 826 0 60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 889
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84
vC, conflicting volume 806 1214 403
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 399 882 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 975 241 915
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 530 276 413 413 0 60
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 11 0 0 0 60
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 915
Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 5
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2075
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 22: Road 3/Montage Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 131 1157 142 86 459 139 98 21 125 35 65 35 Future Volume (vph) 131 1157 142 86 459 139 98 21 125 35 65 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5002 1770 4908 1770 1624 1770 1765 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5002 1770 4908 1770 1624 1770 1765 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 142 1258 154 93 499 151 107 23 136 38 71 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 62 0 0 102 0 0 31 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 1396 0 93 588 0 107 57 0 38 78 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 21.0 5.8 19.3 5.5 14.6 1.7 10.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 21.0 5.8 19.3 5.5 14.6 1.7 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.36 0.10 0.33 0.09 0.25 0.03 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 1777 173 1602 164 401 50 322
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.28 0.05 0.12 c0.06 c0.03 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.78 0.53 0.36 0.65 0.14 0.76 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 17.0 25.3 15.2 25.8 17.3 28.4 20.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 2.3 3.1 0.1 8.9 0.1 48.9 0.3
Delay (s) 30.2 19.3 28.5 15.3 34.8 17.5 77.4 21.0
Level of Service C B C B C B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.3 17.0 24.4 35.6
Approach LOS C B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2076
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 23: INP Road 1 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1457 41 0 455 0 42
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1457 41 0 455 0 42
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1584 45 0 495 0 46
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 418 404
pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 0.78 0.78
vC, conflicting volume 1629 1772 551
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 818 1001 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 628 187 846
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 634 634 362 165 165 165 46
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 45 0 0 0 46
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 846
Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.37 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2077
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 24: Shea Center Drive & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 130 1268 101 130 323 139 98 21 166 35 64 34 Future Volume (vph) 130 1268 101 130 323 139 98 21 166 35 64 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5029 1770 4856 1770 1615 1770 1766 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5029 1770 4856 1770 1615 1770 1766 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 141 1378 110 141 351 151 107 23 180 38 70 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 82 0 0 137 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 1478 0 141 420 0 107 66 0 38 77 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 20.8 7.2 21.2 4.7 14.2 1.4 10.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.8 20.8 7.2 21.2 4.7 14.2 1.4 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.35 0.12 0.36 0.08 0.24 0.02 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 201 1755 213 1727 139 384 41 322
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.29 0.08 0.09 c0.06 c0.04 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.84 0.66 0.24 0.76 0.17 0.92 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 25.4 17.8 25.0 13.5 26.9 18.0 29.0 20.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.5 3.8 7.5 0.0 22.2 0.2 110.9 0.3 Delay (s) 35.9 21.7 32.5 13.6 49.1 18.2 140.0 21.1
Level of Service D C C B D B F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.9 17.7 28.9 52.3
Approach LOS C B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2078
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 1 25: INP Road 2 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1297 20 0 684 0 21
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1297 20 0 684 0 21
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1410 22 0 743 0 23
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 397 579
pX, platoon unblocked 0.77 0.77 0.77
vC, conflicting volume 1432 1669 481
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 521 828 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 803 239 836
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 564 564 304 248 248 248 23
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 22 0 0 0 23
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 836
Volume to Capacity 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2079
June 20, 2024 Page 13
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Appendices Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix C – 2040 Option 1 Mitigated LOS
Calculations – AM peak

EXHIBIT D
2080
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 1: Isabel Ave & Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 161 455 238 344 160 300 1047 204 322 1260 17 Future Volume (vph) 1 161 455 238 344 160 300 1047 204 322 1260 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 175 495 259 374 174 326 1138 222 350 1370 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 98 0 0 80 0 0 149 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 175 397 259 374 94 326 1138 73 350 1370 6 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 18.0 33.0 14.4 31.7 45.4 15.0 30.8 30.8 13.7 29.5 29.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.1 17.4 31.8 13.8 31.1 44.2 16.0 31.8 31.8 14.7 30.5 29.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.00 0.18 0.33 0.14 0.32 0.46 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.32 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1 337 523 254 602 728 294 1682 523 525 1613 485 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.09 c0.11 c0.15 0.20 0.02 c0.18 0.22 0.10 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.00
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.51 0.75 1.01 0.62 0.12 1.10 0.67 0.14 0.66 0.84 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 47.9 35.5 28.7 41.1 27.5 14.8 40.0 27.7 22.5 38.3 30.6 23.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 900.0 1.3 6.2 61.6 1.9 0.0 84.9 1.4 0.2 3.1 4.8 0.0 Delay (s) 948.0 36.9 34.9 102.7 29.5 14.9 124.9 29.1 22.8 41.5 35.5 23.1 Level of Service F D C F C B F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 36.8 49.8 46.8 36.6
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 42.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.1 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2081
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 2: Murrieta Blvd/Driveway & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 558 114 299 1253 1 208 6 138 1 3 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 558 114 299 1253 1 208 6 138 1 3 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 3449 3433 3539 1681 1690 1583 1840
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 3449 3433 3539 1681 1690 1583 1840
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 607 124 325 1362 1 226 7 150 1 3 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 711 0 325 1363 0 118 115 23 0 4 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 10.0 30.6 8.9 8.9 8.9 0.5
Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 10.0 29.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 0.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.19 0.56 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.01
Clearance Time (s) 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1012 641 1964 260 262 245 17
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 0.09 c0.39 c0.07 0.07 c0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.50 0.69 0.45 0.43 0.09 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 16.8 19.5 8.6 20.5 20.4 19.3 26.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 2.5
Delay (s) 18.6 19.7 9.4 20.9 20.9 19.4 28.8
Level of Service B B A C C B C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.6 11.4 20.3 28.8
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.5 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2082
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 3: Livermore Ave & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 316 292 130 111 651 92 233 645 74 129 800 486 Future Volume (vph) 316 292 130 111 651 92 233 645 74 129 800 486 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3485 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3485 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 343 317 141 121 708 100 253 701 80 140 870 528 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 102 0 0 71 0 9 0 0 0 49
Lane Group Flow (vph) 343 317 39 121 708 29 253 772 0 140 870 479 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 24.1 24.1 7.1 25.1 25.1 13.2 30.6 9.8 27.2 33.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 25.4 24.1 7.1 26.4 25.1 13.2 29.7 9.8 26.3 31.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.29 0.28 0.08 0.30 0.29 0.15 0.34 0.11 0.30 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 347 1026 435 143 1066 453 266 1181 198 1062 657 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.09 0.07 c0.20 c0.14 c0.22 0.08 c0.25 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.26
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.30 0.08 0.84 0.66 0.06 0.95 0.65 0.70 0.81 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 40.7 24.2 23.5 39.7 26.7 22.7 36.8 24.5 37.5 28.4 24.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 44.7 0.1 0.0 34.4 1.5 0.0 41.7 1.3 10.9 5.0 4.0 Delay (s) 85.4 24.4 23.6 74.1 28.3 22.7 78.6 25.9 48.4 33.4 28.3 Level of Service F C C E C C E C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 50.4 33.6 38.8 33.0
Approach LOS D C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 37.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2083
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 4: Isabel Ave & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 814 0 494 0 610 193 105 866 443 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 814 0 494 0 610 193 105 866 443 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5058 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 5085 1583 4019 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 885 0 537 0 663 210 114 941 482
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 275
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 885 0 514 0 663 210 0 1055 207 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Free Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.4 25.4 26.6 60.0 26.6 26.6
Effective Green, g (s) 25.4 25.4 25.8 60.0 25.8 25.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.43 1.00 0.43 0.43
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1453 670 2186 1583 1728 680
v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 c0.32 0.13 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.26
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.76 0.30 0.13 0.61 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 14.7 11.2 0.0 13.2 11.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 4.7 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.1
Delay (s) 13.9 19.5 9.3 0.1 14.8 12.3
Level of Service B B A A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 16.0 7.1 14.0
Approach LOS A B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2084
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 5: Isabel Ave & I-580 EB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 287 0 311 0 0 0 0 835 421 0 1235 483 Future Volume (vph) 287 0 311 0 0 0 0 835 421 0 1235 483 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 312 0 338 0 0 0 0 908 458 0 1342 525
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 312 0 258 0 0 0 0 908 458 0 1342 525 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 10.1 40.9 60.0 40.9 60.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.1 10.1 41.9 60.0 41.9 60.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.70 1.00 0.70 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 577 469 3551 1583 3551 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.18 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.09 0.29 0.33
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.55 0.25 0.28 0.37 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 22.8 22.8 3.3 0.0 3.7 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4
Delay (s) 23.3 23.6 3.4 0.4 3.9 0.4
Level of Service C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.5 0.0 2.4 2.9
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2085
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 6: Airway Blvd & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 66 25 668 0 1279 345 0 362 683 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 66 25 668 0 1279 345 0 362 683 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1722 2787 3539 1583 4587
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1722 2787 3539 1583 4587
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 72 27 726 0 1390 375 0 393 742
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 170 0 337 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 38 61 687 0 1390 205 0 798 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 28.8 28.8 28.8
Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 30.1 30.1 30.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.55 0.55 0.55
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 518 531 859 1933 864 2505
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.04 c0.39 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.11 0.79 0.71 0.23 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 13.6 17.4 9.3 6.5 6.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.4 0.1 0.1
Delay (s) 13.4 13.6 22.3 10.7 6.7 6.9
Level of Service B B C B A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 21.3 9.8 6.9
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2086
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 7: Airway Blvd & I-580 EB Ramps/Kitty Hawk Rd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 684 215 431 56 34 106 61 587 215 89 206 151 Future Volume (vph) 684 215 431 56 34 106 61 587 215 89 206 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 2.7 4.0 2.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3397 1770 3315 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3397 1770 3315 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 743 234 468 61 37 115 66 638 234 97 224 164 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 348 0 0 90 0 43 0 0 117 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 743 234 120 61 37 25 66 829 0 97 271 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 20.1 20.1 10.2 10.2 14.5 10.6 27.5 4.3 21.2 Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 20.1 20.1 9.8 9.8 13.7 10.1 28.8 4.3 22.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.37 0.06 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 883 479 407 222 233 366 228 1252 97 955 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.13 c0.03 0.02 0.00 0.04 c0.24 c0.05 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.48 0.29 0.27 0.15 0.06 0.28 0.66 1.00 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 24.6 23.3 30.9 30.4 26.8 30.7 20.5 36.9 21.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.3 91.3 0.2 Delay (s) 34.5 24.9 23.4 31.1 30.5 26.9 31.0 21.9 128.2 21.7 Level of Service C C C C C C C C F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 29.3 28.7 22.6 43.0
Approach LOS C C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.1 Sum of lost time (s) 15.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2087
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 8: Isabel Ave & Jack London Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 64 46 410 781 404 379 988 99 160 1403 303 Future Volume (vph) 33 64 46 410 781 404 379 988 99 160 1403 303 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 70 50 446 849 439 412 1074 108 174 1525 329 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 53 0 0 68 0 0 108
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 70 8 446 849 386 412 1074 40 174 1525 221 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.9 17.1 17.1 17.9 31.1 41.8 12.9 39.1 39.1 10.7 36.9 36.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 17.1 17.1 17.9 31.1 41.8 12.9 39.1 39.1 10.7 36.9 36.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.29 0.39 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 126 570 255 298 1038 703 417 1875 583 346 1770 551 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 c0.25 c0.24 0.06 c0.12 0.21 0.05 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.19 0.03 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.12 0.03 1.49 0.81 0.54 0.98 0.57 0.06 0.50 0.86 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 38.0 37.4 44.0 34.8 24.8 46.4 26.7 21.6 45.1 32.1 26.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.0 0.0 240.4 5.1 0.8 40.4 0.4 0.0 1.1 4.5 0.4 Delay (s) 50.9 38.1 37.5 284.4 39.9 25.6 86.9 27.1 21.7 46.2 36.7 26.6 Level of Service D D D F D C F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.8 99.2 42.2 35.9
Approach LOS D F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 57.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 21.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2088
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 9: Airway Blvd/Driveway & N Canyons Pkwy 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 95 50 883 909 0 725 0 1132 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 95 50 883 909 0 725 0 1132 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 103 54 960 988 0 788 0 1230 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 103 6 960 988 0 0 788 1095 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 41.0 55.0 40.0 81.0
Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 43.0 57.0 39.8 85.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.55 0.39 0.83
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 184 1433 1030 683 2354
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.28 c0.53 c0.45 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.03 0.66 0.95 1.15 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 40.3 24.2 21.8 31.6 2.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 1.2 18.7 85.2 0.1
Delay (s) 41.7 40.4 25.4 40.6 116.8 2.6
Level of Service D D C D F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.2 33.1 47.2 0.0
Approach LOS D C D A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 40.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2089
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 10: Collier Canyon Rd & N Canyons Pkwy/Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 233 328 40 279 1078 40 2 3 38 57 5 8 Future Volume (vph) 233 328 40 279 1078 40 2 3 38 57 5 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1602 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1602 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 253 357 43 303 1172 43 2 3 41 62 5 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 22 0 36 0 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 253 357 17 303 1172 21 2 8 0 62 5 1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 26.1 26.1 16.0 32.4 32.4 1.0 7.4 3.0 9.4 9.4 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 27.4 27.4 16.0 33.7 33.7 1.0 8.4 3.0 8.8 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.40 0.40 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 486 1415 633 413 1741 778 25 196 77 239 203 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.10 c0.17 c0.33 0.00 c0.01 c0.04 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.25 0.02 0.73 0.67 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.80 0.02 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 13.7 12.4 24.2 13.2 8.9 33.2 26.4 32.4 26.0 26.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 28.2 13.8 12.4 30.9 14.2 8.9 34.6 26.5 76.2 26.1 26.0 Level of Service C B B C B A C C E C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.3 17.4 26.9 67.0
Approach LOS B B C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.5 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2090
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 11: Isabel Ave/Campus Hill Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 310 197 253 645 64 479 270 101 11 76 2 Future Volume (vph) 2 310 197 253 645 64 479 270 101 11 76 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3491 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3491 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 337 214 275 701 70 521 293 110 12 83 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 162 0 6 0 0 0 63 0 0 2
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 337 52 275 765 0 521 293 47 12 83 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.5 18.6 18.6 9.6 26.7 20.1 33.6 33.6 1.5 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g (s) 1.5 19.9 19.9 9.6 28.0 20.1 34.9 34.9 1.5 14.5 14.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.34 0.25 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 32 859 677 584 1193 842 1508 674 32 626 280 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.10 c0.06 c0.22 c0.15 c0.08 0.01 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.39 0.07 0.47 0.64 0.61 0.19 0.06 0.37 0.13 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 39.5 25.9 23.9 33.7 22.7 27.4 14.7 13.8 39.7 28.4 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 39.8 26.2 23.9 33.9 23.9 28.4 14.7 13.9 42.4 28.4 27.7 Level of Service D C C C C C B B D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.4 26.5 22.3 30.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.9 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2091
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 12: Rutan Dr/BART W. Access & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 205 451 31 15 679 128 89 10 6 25 1 28 Future Volume (vph) 205 451 31 15 679 128 89 10 6 25 1 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1845 1770 1818 1770 1754 1770 1592 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.74 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1845 1770 1818 1373 1754 1389 1592 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 223 490 34 16 738 139 97 11 7 27 1 30
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 0 26 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 223 522 0 16 870 0 97 12 0 27 5 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 55.6 1.4 43.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 55.6 1.4 43.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.70 0.02 0.55 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1282 30 995 188 241 190 218
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.28 0.01 c0.48 0.01 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.40 0.53 0.87 0.51 0.04 0.14 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 5.1 38.9 15.7 32.0 29.9 30.3 29.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.2 0.9 9.0 5.8 2.3 0.0 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 43.1 6.1 44.4 17.2 34.4 30.0 30.6 29.8
Level of Service D A D B C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.1 17.7 33.7 30.2
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2092
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 13: E. Airway Blvd & BART E. Access 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 103 288 91 11 567 257 241 173 12 51 13 14 Future Volume (vph) 103 288 91 11 567 257 241 173 12 51 13 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1796 1770 1776 1770 1845 1770 1718 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.50 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1796 1770 1776 1375 1845 949 1718 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 112 313 99 12 616 279 262 188 13 55 14 15 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 21 0 0 3 0 0 11 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 400 0 12 874 0 262 198 0 55 18 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.3 48.2 0.8 39.7 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.3 48.2 0.8 39.7 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.60 0.01 0.50 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 1082 17 881 326 438 225 408
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.22 0.01 c0.49 0.11 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.36 0.70 0.99 0.80 0.45 0.24 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 8.1 39.4 19.9 28.7 26.0 24.6 23.4 Progression Factor 0.86 0.39 1.06 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 0.9 74.4 26.0 13.3 0.7 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 31.7 4.1 116.3 46.6 42.0 26.7 25.2 23.5
Level of Service C A F D D C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.0 47.5 35.4 24.6
Approach LOS B D D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2093
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 14: Isabel Ave & Gateway Blvd./N. BART Parking 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 307 310 25 89 392 665 47 26 663 57 Future Volume (vph) 5 5 307 310 25 89 392 665 47 26 663 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1512 1504 1770 1644 3433 3504 1770 3497 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1512 1504 1770 1644 3433 3504 1770 3497 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 334 337 27 97 426 723 51 28 721 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 138 143 0 60 0 0 4 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 31 27 337 64 0 426 770 0 28 777 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 13.7 13.7 19.3 32.4 12.2 34.6 1.5 23.9 Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 13.7 13.7 19.3 32.4 12.2 34.6 1.5 23.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.38 0.14 0.41 0.02 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 243 242 401 625 492 1424 31 982
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.02 c0.19 0.04 c0.12 0.22 0.02 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.12 0.11 0.84 0.10 0.86 0.54 0.90 0.79
Uniform Delay, d1 42.0 30.5 30.5 31.4 16.9 35.6 19.2 41.7 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 21.7 0.2 0.2 14.6 0.0 14.7 1.4 120.6 6.5 Delay (s) 63.8 30.8 30.7 46.0 17.0 50.3 20.6 162.4 34.8 Level of Service E C C D B D C F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.2 38.2 31.2 39.2
Approach LOS C D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 34.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2094
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 15: Main Street & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 419 22 0 1276 0 10
Future Volume (Veh/h) 419 22 0 1276 0 10
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 455 24 0 1387 0 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 366 483
pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.85 0.95
vC, conflicting volume 479 929 164
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 284 0 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1216 868 1034
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 182 182 115 462 462 462 11
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 24 0 0 0 11
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1034
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2095
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 16: Sutter St & E. Airway Blvd. 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 318 18 56 639 48 57
Future Volume (vph) 318 18 56 639 48 57
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1770 1863 1687
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 1849 1001 1863 1687
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 346 20 61 695 52 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 47 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 365 0 61 695 67 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 85.9 85.9 85.9 11.1
Effective Green, g (s) 85.9 85.9 85.9 11.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1512 818 1524 178
v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.37 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.07 0.45 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 2.1 1.8 2.7 43.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.3
Delay (s) 2.5 1.8 2.9 45.0
Level of Service A A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.5 2.8 45.0
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2096
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 17: Portola Ave & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 280 633 826 400 62
Future Volume (vph) 37 280 633 826 400 62
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.88 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1629 1504 3433 3539 3468
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1629 1504 3433 3539 3468
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 40 304 688 898 435 67
RTOR Reduction (vph) 115 80 0 0 20 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 90 688 898 482 0
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 27.3 16.0 36.0 16.0
Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 27.3 16.0 36.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.31 0.70 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 231 800 1070 2483 1081
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.06 c0.20 0.25 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.11 0.64 0.36 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 19.5 5.9 15.1 3.0 14.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.2
Delay (s) 20.1 6.0 16.5 3.1 14.4
Level of Service C A B A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.1 8.9 14.4
Approach LOS B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2097
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 18: Stealth & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 279 72 44 643 192 57
Future Volume (vph) 279 72 44 643 192 57
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1811 1770 1863 1738
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1811 950 1863 1738
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 303 78 48 699 209 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 10 0 0 0 14 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 371 0 48 699 257 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 55.2 55.2 55.2 16.8
Effective Green, g (s) 55.2 55.2 55.2 16.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1249 655 1285 364
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.38 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.07 0.54 0.70
Uniform Delay, d1 4.8 4.0 6.1 29.3
Progression Factor 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.4 6.1
Delay (s) 4.8 4.0 6.6 35.4
Level of Service A A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 4.8 6.4 35.4
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2098
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 19: Isabel Ave & INP Road 3/INP Road 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 24 153 103 41 29 196 548 15 8 490 28 Future Volume (vph) 2 24 153 103 41 29 196 548 15 8 490 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1621 1770 1747 1770 3525 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1621 1770 1747 1770 3525 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 26 166 112 45 32 213 596 16 9 533 30
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 131 0 0 23 0 0 2 0 0 0 21
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 61 0 112 54 0 213 610 0 9 533 9 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 13.9 4.3 17.7 12.3 30.3 0.5 18.5 18.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 13.9 4.3 17.7 12.3 30.3 0.5 18.5 18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.07 0.27 0.19 0.47 0.01 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 346 117 475 334 1643 13 1007 450
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.04 c0.06 c0.03 c0.12 0.17 0.01 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.17 0.95 0.11 0.63 0.37 0.69 0.52 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 20.8 30.2 17.7 24.2 11.2 32.1 19.5 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 0.2 69.0 0.1 3.9 0.1 96.2 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 37.5 21.1 99.3 17.8 28.2 11.3 128.4 20.0 16.7 Level of Service D C F B C B F C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.2 66.1 15.7 21.6
Approach LOS C E B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2099
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 20: Tranquility Circle/Cayetano Park & Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 331 91 40 762 0 200 0 37 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 331 91 40 762 0 200 0 37 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3425 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3425 1770 3539 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 360 99 43 828 0 217 0 40 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 435 0 43 828 0 217 13 0 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 1.5 25.5 8.3 15.9
Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 1.5 25.5 8.3 15.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.03 0.52 0.17 0.32
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1386 53 1826 297 509
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.02 c0.23 c0.12 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.81 0.45 0.73 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 10.0 23.8 7.5 19.4 11.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 59.6 0.1 8.9 0.0
Delay (s) 10.1 83.4 7.7 28.4 11.4
Level of Service B F A C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.1 11.4 25.7 0.0
Approach LOS B B C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2100
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 21: Sandalwood Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 359 10 0 802 0 66
Future Volume (Veh/h) 359 10 0 802 0 66
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 390 11 0 872 0 72
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 889
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 401 832 201
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 401 832 201
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 91
cM capacity (veh/h) 1154 308 807
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 260 141 436 436 0 72
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 11 0 0 0 72
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 807
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 7
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.9
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2101
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 22: Road 3/Montage Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 389 29 77 1008 29 161 6 18 29 79 107 Future Volume (vph) 11 389 29 77 1008 29 161 6 18 29 79 107 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5032 1770 5064 1770 1656 1770 1702 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5032 1770 5064 1770 1656 1770 1702 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 423 32 84 1096 32 175 7 20 32 86 116 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 13 0 0 77 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 445 0 84 1125 0 175 14 0 32 125 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 16.7 4.0 20.2 9.4 21.8 1.7 14.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 16.7 4.0 20.2 9.4 21.8 1.7 14.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.28 0.07 0.34 0.16 0.36 0.03 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 1395 117 1699 276 599 49 398
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.09 c0.05 c0.22 c0.10 0.01 0.02 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.31 0.71 0.66 0.63 0.02 0.65 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 29.8 17.2 27.5 17.0 23.7 12.3 28.9 19.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 164.6 0.1 18.8 0.9 4.7 0.0 27.1 0.4 Delay (s) 194.4 17.3 46.4 18.0 28.4 12.3 56.0 19.5
Level of Service F B D B C B E B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.9 20.0 26.3 24.5
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2102
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 23: INP Road 1 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 8 0 1397 0 6
Future Volume (Veh/h) 415 8 0 1397 0 6
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 451 9 0 1518 0 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 418 404
pX, platoon unblocked 0.80
vC, conflicting volume 460 962 155
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 460 69 155
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1097 741 863
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 180 180 99 506 506 506 7
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 9 0 0 0 7
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 863
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2103
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 24: Shea Center Drive & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 389 21 116 1131 29 160 6 24 28 79 106 Future Volume (vph) 11 389 21 116 1131 29 160 6 24 28 79 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5046 1770 5066 1770 1643 1770 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5046 1770 5066 1770 1643 1770 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 423 23 126 1229 32 174 7 26 30 86 115 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 17 0 0 64 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 440 0 126 1258 0 174 16 0 30 137 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 17.5 7.6 24.6 11.0 24.4 1.7 15.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 17.5 7.6 24.6 11.0 24.4 1.7 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.26 0.11 0.37 0.16 0.36 0.03 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 1314 200 1854 289 596 44 382
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.09 c0.07 c0.25 c0.10 0.01 0.02 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.33 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.02 0.68 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 20.1 28.4 17.9 26.0 13.7 32.4 21.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 207.3 0.1 6.3 1.0 3.5 0.0 35.6 0.5 Delay (s) 240.6 20.2 34.7 18.9 29.5 13.7 68.1 22.5
Level of Service F C C B C B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 26.0 20.4 27.0 28.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 23.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2104
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 1 25: INP Road 2 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 432 4 0 1114 0 3
Future Volume (Veh/h) 432 4 0 1114 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 470 4 0 1211 0 3
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 397 579
pX, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.98 0.97
vC, conflicting volume 474 876 159
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 330 553 3
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1184 453 1042
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 188 188 98 404 404 404 3
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 4 0 0 0 3
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1042
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2105
June 20, 2024 Page 14
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Appendices Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix D – 2040 Option 1 Mitigated LOS
Calculations – PM peak

EXHIBIT D
2106
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 1: Isabel Ave & Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 9 173 422 291 189 282 463 994 267 310 1321 18 Future Volume (vph) 9 173 422 291 189 282 463 994 267 310 1321 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 188 459 316 205 307 503 1080 290 337 1436 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 56 0 0 50 0 0 172 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 188 403 316 205 257 503 1080 118 337 1436 8 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 23.3 50.3 14.4 36.9 64.1 27.0 55.9 55.9 27.2 56.1 56.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.2 22.7 49.1 13.8 36.3 62.9 28.0 56.9 56.9 28.2 57.1 56.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.00 0.16 0.35 0.10 0.26 0.45 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.41 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2 302 555 174 483 711 354 2066 643 691 2073 634 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.10 c0.14 c0.18 0.11 0.07 c0.28 0.21 0.10 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.01
v/c Ratio 5.00 0.62 0.72 1.81 0.42 0.36 1.42 0.52 0.18 0.48 0.69 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 69.9 54.6 39.5 63.1 43.1 25.3 56.0 31.3 26.6 49.5 34.2 25.2 Progression Factor 1.07 0.81 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2493.2 3.3 4.0 388.9 0.6 0.3 205.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.9 0.0 Delay (s) 2568.2 47.7 31.6 452.0 43.7 25.6 261.2 32.2 27.2 50.0 36.1 25.3 Level of Service F D C F D C F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 74.9 192.8 92.9 38.6
Approach LOS E F F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 87.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2107
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 2: Murrieta Blvd/Driveway & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 1091 249 239 911 2 201 2 488 7 1 3 Future Volume (vph) 2 1091 249 239 911 2 201 2 488 7 1 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3440 3433 3538 1681 1687 1583 1742 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3440 3433 3538 1681 1687 1583 1742 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 1186 271 260 990 2 218 2 530 8 1 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 306 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1444 0 260 992 0 113 107 224 0 9 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 52.7 11.7 63.7 17.4 17.4 17.4 0.7 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 51.8 11.7 62.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 0.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.52 0.12 0.63 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 1781 401 2221 282 283 265 12
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.42 c0.08 0.28 0.07 0.06 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.14
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.81 0.64 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.84 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 49.3 20.0 42.1 9.6 37.1 36.9 40.3 49.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.3 20.3 118.8 Delay (s) 51.7 22.7 44.8 9.6 37.4 37.2 60.6 168.4
Level of Service D C D A D D E F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.8 16.9 53.8 168.4
Approach LOS C B D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 27.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2108
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 3: Livermore Ave & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 837 654 180 42 391 70 270 729 194 224 995 505 Future Volume (vph) 837 654 180 42 391 70 270 729 194 224 995 505 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3428 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3428 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 910 711 196 46 425 76 293 792 211 243 1082 549 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 132 0 0 61 0 19 0 0 0 67
Lane Group Flow (vph) 910 711 64 46 425 15 293 984 0 243 1082 482 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 34.9 34.9 4.6 21.5 21.5 17.0 36.1 16.0 35.1 53.1 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 36.2 34.9 4.6 22.8 21.5 17.0 35.2 16.0 34.2 51.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.34 0.32 0.04 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.33 0.15 0.32 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 834 1190 513 75 749 316 279 1121 263 1124 754 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.20 0.03 c0.12 c0.17 0.29 0.14 c0.31 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 0.20
v/c Ratio 1.09 0.59 0.12 0.61 0.56 0.04 1.05 0.87 0.92 0.96 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 44.8 29.6 25.5 50.6 37.9 34.7 45.3 34.1 45.1 36.0 21.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 58.9 0.8 0.1 13.9 0.9 0.0 67.6 7.9 35.5 18.4 1.7 Delay (s) 103.7 30.4 25.6 64.5 38.9 34.8 112.9 42.1 80.7 54.4 22.9 Level of Service F C C E D C F D F D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 66.6 40.5 58.1 48.6
Approach LOS E D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 56.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 107.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2109
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 4: Isabel Ave & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 843 0 596 0 783 89 0 821 598 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 843 0 596 0 783 89 0 821 598
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 916 0 648 0 851 97 0 892 650
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 361
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 916 0 568 0 851 97 0 892 289 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Free NA Prot
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.1 30.1 31.9 70.0 31.9 31.9
Effective Green, g (s) 30.1 30.1 31.1 70.0 31.1 31.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.44 1.00 0.44 0.44
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1476 680 2259 1583 2259 703
v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 c0.36 0.17 0.18 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.83 0.37 0.06 0.39 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 15.5 17.7 12.9 0.0 13.1 13.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 8.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.7
Delay (s) 16.0 26.1 13.4 0.0 13.6 14.9
Level of Service B C B A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 20.2 12.0 14.2
Approach LOS A C B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2110
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 5: Isabel Ave & I-580 EB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 396 0 359 0 0 0 0 847 731 0 1121 671 Future Volume (vph) 396 0 359 0 0 0 0 847 731 0 1121 671 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 430 0 390 0 0 0 0 921 795 0 1218 729
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 430 0 305 0 0 0 0 921 795 0 1218 729 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.2 11.2 34.8 55.0 34.8 55.0
Effective Green, g (s) 11.2 11.2 35.8 55.0 35.8 55.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.65 1.00 0.65 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 699 567 3309 1583 3309 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.18 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.50 0.46
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.53 0.27 0.50 0.36 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 19.9 19.5 4.0 0.0 4.4 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.9
Delay (s) 21.0 20.0 4.3 1.1 4.7 0.9
Level of Service C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.6 0.0 2.8 3.3
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2111
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 6: Airway Blvd & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 137 1 194 0 723 400 0 790 778 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 137 1 194 0 723 400 0 790 778 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1686 2787 3539 1583 4707
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1686 2787 3539 1583 4707
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 149 1 211 0 786 435 0 859 846
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 0 113 0 165 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 79 71 31 0 786 322 0 1540 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.2 10.2 10.2 50.5 50.5 50.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.2 10.2 10.2 51.8 51.8 51.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.74 0.74
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 245 406 2618 1171 3483
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.04 0.22 c0.33
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.28 0.07 0.30 0.27 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 26.6 25.8 3.0 2.9 3.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 2.35 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.4
Delay (s) 27.0 26.9 25.8 2.6 7.4 3.9
Level of Service C C C A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 26.3 4.3 3.9
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2112
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 7: Airway Blvd & I-580 EB Ramps/Kitty Hawk Rd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 542 236 366 98 111 216 124 484 198 144 420 353 Future Volume (vph) 542 236 366 98 111 216 124 484 198 144 420 353 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 2.7 4.0 2.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3385 1770 3297 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3385 1770 3297 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 589 257 398 107 121 235 135 526 215 157 457 384 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 297 0 0 83 0 26 0 0 106 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 589 257 101 107 121 152 135 715 0 157 735 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 30.7 30.7 30.7 15.3 15.3 31.7 19.3 61.6 16.4 58.7 Effective Green, g (s) 30.7 30.7 30.7 14.9 14.9 30.9 18.8 62.9 16.4 60.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.13 0.45 0.12 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 752 408 347 188 198 399 237 1520 207 1413 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.14 0.06 c0.06 0.04 0.08 c0.21 c0.09 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.62 0.28 0.56 0.61 0.38 0.56 0.47 0.75 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 51.5 49.5 45.5 59.4 59.7 46.4 56.8 26.9 59.8 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.83 1.04 0.93 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 2.1 0.1 2.3 3.8 0.2 0.8 0.4 12.2 1.2 Delay (s) 56.4 51.6 45.7 61.8 63.6 46.6 46.8 22.8 74.6 28.8 Level of Service E D D E E D D C E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 52.0 54.6 26.5 36.0
Approach LOS D D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 41.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2113
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 8: Isabel Ave & Jack London Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 242 734 260 222 238 244 101 1296 679 304 1603 82 Future Volume (vph) 242 734 260 222 238 244 101 1296 679 304 1603 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 263 798 283 241 259 265 110 1409 738 330 1742 89 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 113 0 0 37 0 0 194 0 0 52
Lane Group Flow (vph) 263 798 170 241 259 228 110 1409 544 330 1742 37 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 33.8 33.8 17.7 36.5 52.6 8.6 49.7 49.7 16.1 57.2 57.2 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 33.8 33.8 17.7 36.5 52.6 8.6 49.7 49.7 16.1 57.2 57.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.26 0.38 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 371 863 386 226 932 661 213 1824 568 399 2100 653 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.23 c0.14 0.07 c0.04 0.03 0.28 c0.10 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.10 c0.34 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.92 0.44 1.06 0.27 0.34 0.51 0.77 0.95 0.82 0.82 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 59.6 51.1 44.3 60.4 40.5 30.6 62.9 39.3 43.3 59.8 36.2 24.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 15.3 0.8 78.5 0.1 0.3 2.1 2.0 27.3 13.1 2.8 0.0 Delay (s) 65.7 66.4 45.1 138.9 40.6 30.9 65.0 41.4 70.7 72.9 39.1 24.4 Level of Service E E D F D C E D E E D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 61.8 68.2 52.1 43.7
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 53.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 138.5 Sum of lost time (s) 21.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2114
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 9: Airway Blvd/Driveway & N Canyons Pkwy 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 775 297 1178 40 0 99 0 752 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 775 297 1178 40 0 99 0 752 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 842 323 1280 43 0 108 0 817 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 279 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 842 97 1280 43 0 0 108 538 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.0 33.0 55.5 92.5 19.5 75.0
Effective Green, g (s) 35.0 35.0 57.5 94.5 19.3 79.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.48 0.79 0.16 0.66
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1032 461 1644 1467 284 1881
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.37 0.02 c0.06 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.21 0.77 0.02 0.38 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 39.5 32.0 25.9 2.7 45.0 8.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.1 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.8 0.0
Delay (s) 46.6 33.1 28.3 2.8 45.8 8.7
Level of Service D C C A D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 42.8 27.5 13.0 0.0
Approach LOS D C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2115
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 10: Collier Canyon Rd & N Canyons Pkwy/Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 117 1129 109 61 351 44 13 6 330 39 4 90 Future Volume (vph) 117 1129 109 61 351 44 13 6 330 39 4 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1589 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1589 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 1227 118 66 382 48 14 7 359 42 4 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 64 0 0 27 0 217 0 0 0 73
Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 1227 54 66 382 21 14 149 0 42 4 25 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 32.0 32.0 4.3 29.8 29.8 1.2 16.5 3.4 18.7 18.7 Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 33.3 33.3 4.3 31.1 31.1 1.2 17.5 3.4 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.24 0.05 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 309 1632 730 105 1524 681 29 385 83 467 396 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.35 c0.04 0.11 0.01 c0.09 c0.02 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.75 0.07 0.62 0.25 0.03 0.48 0.38 0.50 0.00 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 31.0 16.0 10.8 33.1 13.1 11.8 35.1 22.8 33.5 20.3 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 2.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.6 4.7 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 31.9 18.0 10.8 44.3 13.2 11.8 47.3 23.5 38.3 20.3 20.6 Level of Service C B B D B B D C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.6 17.2 24.3 25.8
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.2 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2116
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 11: Isabel Ave/Campus Hill Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 927 409 409 444 10 290 225 93 3 183 6 Future Volume (vph) 6 927 409 409 444 10 290 225 93 3 183 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3527 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3527 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 1008 445 445 483 11 315 245 101 3 199 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 200 0 1 0 0 0 74 0 0 6
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 1008 245 445 493 0 315 245 27 3 199 1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 39.2 39.2 12.9 50.5 11.1 24.8 24.8 1.6 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 40.5 40.5 12.9 51.8 11.1 26.1 26.1 1.6 14.8 14.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.53 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 29 1476 1162 662 1881 392 951 425 29 539 241 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 c0.09 0.14 c0.09 0.07 0.00 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.68 0.21 0.67 0.26 0.80 0.25 0.06 0.10 0.36 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 47.1 23.0 18.0 40.0 12.2 41.9 27.8 26.4 47.0 36.9 34.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 1.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 10.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 48.7 24.3 18.1 42.2 12.3 52.6 28.0 26.4 47.6 37.3 34.9 Level of Service D C B D B D C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.6 26.5 39.5 37.4
Approach LOS C C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.1 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2117
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 12: Rutan Dr/BART W. Access & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 673 51 40 499 27 47 1 1 135 24 227 Future Volume (vph) 25 673 51 40 499 27 47 1 1 135 24 227 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1843 1770 1849 1770 1723 1770 1610 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.75 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1843 1770 1849 521 1723 1409 1610 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 732 55 43 542 29 51 1 1 147 26 247
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 203 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 784 0 43 569 0 51 1 0 147 70 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 49.7 4.0 49.9 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 49.7 4.0 49.9 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.62 0.05 0.62 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 84 1144 88 1153 93 307 251 287
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.43 0.02 c0.31 0.00 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.10
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.68 0.48 0.49 0.54 0.00 0.58 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 36.8 9.9 37.0 8.1 29.9 26.9 30.1 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 3.3 3.7 1.3 6.4 0.0 3.4 0.4
Delay (s) 39.0 13.3 41.0 8.5 36.3 27.0 33.5 28.6
Level of Service D B D A D C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 14.2 10.7 36.0 30.3
Approach LOS B B D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2118
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 13: E. Airway Blvd & BART E. Access 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 13 488 308 30 286 54 167 12 13 270 107 113 Future Volume (vph) 13 488 308 30 286 54 167 12 13 270 107 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1755 1770 1818 1770 1718 1770 1719 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.73 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1755 1770 1818 842 1718 1378 1719 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 530 335 33 311 59 182 13 14 293 116 123 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 8 0 0 11 0 0 50 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 839 0 33 362 0 182 17 0 293 190 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 45.6 2.4 44.9 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 45.6 2.4 44.9 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.57 0.03 0.56 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 68 1000 53 1020 210 429 344 429
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.48 c0.02 0.20 0.01 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.83 0.62 0.35 0.86 0.03 0.85 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 37.2 14.1 38.3 9.6 28.7 22.7 28.5 25.2 Progression Factor 1.16 0.81 1.09 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 6.7 20.1 0.9 29.1 0.0 17.9 0.7 Delay (s) 44.5 18.3 62.0 10.8 57.8 22.7 46.5 26.0
Level of Service D B E B E C D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.8 15.0 53.3 37.3
Approach LOS B B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 26.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2119
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 14: Isabel Ave & Gateway Blvd./N. BART Parking 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 87 45 448 125 23 93 443 601 335 167 988 37 Future Volume (vph) 87 45 448 125 23 93 443 601 335 167 988 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1552 1504 1770 1639 3433 3349 1770 3520 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1552 1504 1770 1639 3433 3349 1770 3520 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 49 487 136 25 101 482 653 364 182 1074 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 192 226 0 84 0 0 92 0 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 81 37 136 42 0 482 925 0 182 1111 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.4 10.4 10.4 7.1 12.1 12.1 29.0 10.5 27.4 Effective Green, g (s) 5.4 10.4 10.4 7.1 12.1 12.1 29.0 10.5 27.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.14 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 130 221 214 172 271 569 1330 254 1321 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.05 c0.08 0.03 c0.14 0.28 0.10 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.36 0.17 0.79 0.15 0.84 0.69 0.71 0.84
Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 28.3 27.5 32.2 26.0 29.5 18.3 29.8 20.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.9 1.0 0.3 21.4 0.2 11.2 1.5 9.2 5.0 Delay (s) 52.0 29.3 27.9 53.6 26.3 40.7 19.9 39.0 25.8
Level of Service D C C D C D B D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 32.1 40.5 26.6 27.6
Approach LOS C D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2120
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 15: Main Street & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1368 101 0 592 0 62
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1368 101 0 592 0 62
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1487 110 0 643 0 67
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 366 483
pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.75 0.74
vC, conflicting volume 1597 1756 551
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 582 691 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 732 284 804
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 595 595 407 214 214 214 67
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 110 0 0 0 67
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 804
Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.9
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2121
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 16: Sutter St & E. Airway Blvd. 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 519 62 154 327 33 56
Future Volume (vph) 519 62 154 327 33 56
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1836 1770 1863 1674
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1836 724 1863 1674
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 564 67 167 355 36 61
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 54 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 628 0 167 355 43 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 58.3 58.3 58.3 8.7
Effective Green, g (s) 58.3 58.3 58.3 8.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1427 562 1448 194
v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.19 c0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.23
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.29 0.24 0.22
Uniform Delay, d1 2.8 2.4 2.2 30.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.5
Delay (s) 3.8 2.7 2.3 30.6
Level of Service A A A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 3.8 2.4 30.6
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 5.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2122
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 17: Portola Ave & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 123 775 337 807 854 144
Future Volume (vph) 123 775 337 807 854 144
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.89 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1637 1504 3433 3539 3462
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1637 1504 3433 3539 3462
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 134 842 366 877 928 157
RTOR Reduction (vph) 109 34 0 0 16 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 387 446 366 877 1069 0
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.3 38.0 11.7 48.0 32.3
Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 38.0 11.7 48.0 32.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.49 0.15 0.61 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 466 729 512 2169 1428
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.30 0.11 0.25 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.61 0.71 0.40 0.74
Uniform Delay, d1 26.2 14.7 31.7 7.7 19.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 11.9 1.5 4.7 0.1 2.1
Delay (s) 38.1 16.2 36.4 7.9 21.7
Level of Service D B D A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 27.4 16.3 21.7
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 21.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2123
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 18: Stealth & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 525 246 123 237 133 56
Future Volume (vph) 525 246 123 237 133 56
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1783 1770 1863 1727
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1783 479 1863 1727
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 571 267 134 258 145 61
RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 0 0 0 21 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 822 0 134 258 185 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 57.7 57.7 57.7 14.3
Effective Green, g (s) 57.7 57.7 57.7 14.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1285 345 1343 308
v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.14 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.28
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.38 0.19 0.59
Uniform Delay, d1 5.7 4.3 3.6 30.2
Progression Factor 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.7 0.0 3.1
Delay (s) 6.6 5.0 3.6 33.3
Level of Service A A A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 6.6 4.1 33.3
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2124
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 19: Isabel Ave & INP Road 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 44 92 224 42 54 31 222 448 111 56 926 19 Future Volume (vph) 44 92 224 42 54 31 222 448 111 56 926 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1665 1770 1761 1770 3434 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1665 1770 1761 1770 3434 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 100 243 46 59 34 241 487 121 61 1007 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 101 0 0 24 0 0 19 0 0 0 13
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 242 0 46 69 0 241 589 0 61 1007 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.9 17.5 2.9 17.5 15.3 41.8 3.7 30.2 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 2.9 17.5 2.9 17.5 15.3 41.8 3.7 30.2 30.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.21 0.04 0.21 0.19 0.51 0.05 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 62 355 62 376 330 1752 79 1304 583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.15 0.03 0.04 c0.14 0.17 0.03 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.68 0.74 0.18 0.73 0.33 0.77 0.77 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 39.1 29.6 39.1 26.3 31.3 11.8 38.6 22.8 16.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 44.2 5.2 37.5 0.2 8.0 0.1 36.3 2.9 0.0 Delay (s) 83.4 34.9 76.7 26.5 39.4 11.9 75.0 25.7 16.4
Level of Service F C E C D B E C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.8 43.1 19.7 28.3
Approach LOS D D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2125
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 20: Tranquility Circle/Cayetano Park & Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 666 329 149 598 13 236 0 62 13 0 29 Future Volume (vph) 29 666 329 149 598 13 236 0 62 13 0 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3364 1770 3528 1770 1583 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3364 1770 3528 1770 1583 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 724 358 162 650 14 257 0 67 14 0 32
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 1 0 0 48 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 1036 0 162 663 0 257 19 0 14 3 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 36.0 11.6 44.4 17.9 26.1 0.6 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 36.0 11.6 44.4 17.9 26.1 0.6 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.40 0.13 0.49 0.20 0.29 0.01 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 62 1341 227 1734 350 457 11 154
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.31 c0.09 0.19 c0.15 c0.01 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.77 0.71 0.38 0.73 0.04 1.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 23.5 37.7 14.3 33.9 23.1 44.8 36.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 2.8 10.1 0.1 7.7 0.0 373.5 0.0 Delay (s) 49.8 26.4 47.9 14.5 41.7 23.1 418.4 36.9
Level of Service D C D B D C F D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 27.1 21.0 37.8 153.0
Approach LOS C C D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2126
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 21: Sandalwood Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 731 10 0 760 0 55
Future Volume (Veh/h) 731 10 0 760 0 55
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 795 11 0 826 0 60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 889
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84
vC, conflicting volume 806 1214 403
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 399 882 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 975 241 915
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 530 276 413 413 0 60
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 11 0 0 0 60
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 915
Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 5
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2127
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 22: Road 3/Montage Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 131 1157 142 86 459 139 98 21 125 35 65 35 Future Volume (vph) 131 1157 142 86 459 139 98 21 125 35 65 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5002 1770 4908 1770 1624 1770 1765 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5002 1770 4908 1770 1624 1770 1765 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 142 1258 154 93 499 151 107 23 136 38 71 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 62 0 0 102 0 0 31 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 1396 0 93 588 0 107 57 0 38 78 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 21.0 5.8 19.3 5.5 14.6 1.7 10.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 21.0 5.8 19.3 5.5 14.6 1.7 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.36 0.10 0.33 0.09 0.25 0.03 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 1777 173 1602 164 401 50 322
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.28 0.05 0.12 c0.06 c0.03 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.78 0.53 0.36 0.65 0.14 0.76 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 17.0 25.3 15.2 25.8 17.3 28.4 20.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 2.3 3.1 0.1 8.9 0.1 48.9 0.3
Delay (s) 30.2 19.3 28.5 15.3 34.8 17.5 77.4 21.0
Level of Service C B C B C B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.3 17.0 24.4 35.6
Approach LOS C B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2128
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 23: INP Road 1 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1457 41 0 455 0 42
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1457 41 0 455 0 42
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1584 45 0 495 0 46
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 418 404
pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 0.78 0.78
vC, conflicting volume 1629 1772 551
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 818 1001 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 628 187 846
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 634 634 362 165 165 165 46
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 45 0 0 0 46
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 846
Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.37 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2129
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 24: Shea Center Drive & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 130 1268 101 130 323 139 98 21 166 35 64 34 Future Volume (vph) 130 1268 101 130 323 139 98 21 166 35 64 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5029 1770 4856 1770 1615 1770 1766 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5029 1770 4856 1770 1615 1770 1766 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 141 1378 110 141 351 151 107 23 180 38 70 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 82 0 0 137 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 1478 0 141 420 0 107 66 0 38 77 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 20.8 7.2 21.2 4.7 14.2 1.4 10.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.8 20.8 7.2 21.2 4.7 14.2 1.4 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.35 0.12 0.36 0.08 0.24 0.02 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 201 1755 213 1727 139 384 41 322
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.29 0.08 0.09 c0.06 c0.04 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.84 0.66 0.24 0.76 0.17 0.92 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 25.4 17.8 25.0 13.5 26.9 18.0 29.0 20.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.5 3.8 7.5 0.0 22.2 0.2 110.9 0.3 Delay (s) 35.9 21.7 32.5 13.6 49.1 18.2 140.0 21.1
Level of Service D C C B D B F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.9 17.7 28.9 52.3
Approach LOS C B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2130
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 1 25: INP Road 2 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1297 20 0 684 0 21
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1297 20 0 684 0 21
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1410 22 0 743 0 23
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 397 579
pX, platoon unblocked 0.77 0.77 0.77
vC, conflicting volume 1432 1669 481
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 521 828 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 803 239 836
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 564 564 304 248 248 248 23
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 22 0 0 0 23
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 836
Volume to Capacity 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2131
June 20, 2024 Page 15
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Appendices Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix E – 2040 Option 2 LOS Calculations – AM
Peak

EXHIBIT D
2132
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 1: Isabel Ave & Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 150 414 235 346 138 226 1078 211 352 1234 31 Future Volume (vph) 1 150 414 235 346 138 226 1078 211 352 1234 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 163 450 255 376 150 246 1172 229 383 1341 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 99 0 0 79 0 0 154 0 0 24
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 163 351 255 376 71 246 1172 75 383 1341 10 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 17.6 32.6 14.4 31.3 45.5 15.0 30.3 30.3 14.2 29.5 29.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.1 17.0 31.4 13.8 30.7 44.3 16.0 31.3 31.3 15.2 30.5 29.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.00 0.18 0.33 0.14 0.32 0.46 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.32 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1 330 519 255 597 732 295 1663 517 545 1620 487 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.09 0.10 c0.14 c0.20 0.01 c0.14 0.23 0.11 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.01
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.49 0.67 1.00 0.62 0.09 0.83 0.70 0.14 0.70 0.82 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 47.8 35.4 27.7 40.9 27.6 14.4 38.5 28.1 22.7 38.1 30.1 23.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 900.0 1.1 3.4 56.3 2.0 0.0 17.9 1.7 0.2 4.0 4.0 0.0 Delay (s) 947.8 36.6 31.2 97.3 29.7 14.5 56.5 29.8 23.0 42.2 34.2 23.0 Level of Service F D C F C B E C C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 34.1 48.8 32.9 35.7
Approach LOS C D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 36.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.7 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2133
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 2: Murrieta Blvd/Driveway & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 580 105 295 1240 1 198 6 139 1 3 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 580 105 295 1240 1 198 6 139 1 3 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 3458 3433 3539 1681 1690 1583 1840
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 3458 3433 3539 1681 1690 1583 1840
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 630 114 321 1348 1 215 7 151 1 3 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 727 0 321 1349 0 112 110 23 0 4 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.8 9.9 30.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 0.5
Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 9.9 29.8 8.1 8.1 8.1 0.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.19 0.56 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.01
Clearance Time (s) 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1029 636 1974 254 256 240 17
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 0.09 c0.38 c0.07 0.07 c0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.50 0.68 0.44 0.42 0.09 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 19.5 8.4 20.5 20.5 19.4 26.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 2.5
Delay (s) 18.5 19.7 9.2 21.0 20.9 19.5 28.8
Level of Service B B A C C B C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.5 11.2 20.4 28.8
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.4 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2134
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 3: Livermore Ave & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 324 287 137 56 649 86 268 485 73 127 723 454 Future Volume (vph) 324 287 137 56 649 86 268 485 73 127 723 454 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3470 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3470 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 352 312 149 61 705 93 291 527 79 138 786 493 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 93 0 0 68 0 10 0 0 0 34
Lane Group Flow (vph) 352 312 56 61 705 25 291 596 0 138 786 459 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 40.7 40.7 4.6 29.3 29.3 18.3 34.9 13.0 29.6 45.6 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 42.0 40.7 4.6 30.6 29.3 18.3 34.0 13.0 28.7 43.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.38 0.37 0.04 0.28 0.27 0.17 0.31 0.12 0.26 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 503 1361 590 74 991 424 296 1080 210 930 705 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.09 0.03 c0.20 c0.16 0.17 0.08 c0.22 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.22 0.09 0.82 0.71 0.05 0.98 0.55 0.65 0.84 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 44.3 22.6 22.2 51.8 35.3 29.6 45.2 31.2 45.9 38.1 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.0 0.0 49.8 2.4 0.0 47.3 0.6 7.2 7.1 2.1 Delay (s) 48.5 22.7 22.3 101.7 37.7 29.7 92.6 31.8 53.1 45.2 28.6 Level of Service D C C F D C F C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 33.8 41.4 51.6 40.2
Approach LOS C D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 41.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2135
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 4: Isabel Ave & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 678 0 514 0 599 118 116 1022 444 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 678 0 514 0 599 118 116 1022 444 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5060 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 5085 1583 4020 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 737 0 559 0 651 128 126 1111 483
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 282
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 737 0 535 0 651 128 0 1237 201 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Free Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.2 26.2 25.8 60.0 25.8 25.8
Effective Green, g (s) 26.2 26.2 25.0 60.0 25.0 25.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.42 1.00 0.42 0.42
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1499 691 2118 1583 1675 659
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.34 0.13 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.31
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.77 0.30 0.08 0.73 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 14.3 11.7 0.0 14.7 11.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 4.9 0.3 0.0 2.9 1.1
Delay (s) 12.2 19.3 9.9 0.0 17.7 12.8
Level of Service B B A A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 15.2 8.3 16.3
Approach LOS A B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2136
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 5: Isabel Ave & I-580 EB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 275 0 351 0 0 0 0 761 501 0 1204 534 Future Volume (vph) 275 0 351 0 0 0 0 761 501 0 1204 534 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 299 0 382 0 0 0 0 827 545 0 1309 580
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 299 0 296 0 0 0 0 827 545 0 1309 580 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 10.6 40.4 60.0 40.4 60.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 10.6 41.4 60.0 41.4 60.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.69 1.00 0.69 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 492 3508 1583 3508 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.16 0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.34 c0.37
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.60 0.23 0.34 0.37 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 22.7 3.4 0.0 3.8 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.5
Delay (s) 22.5 24.1 3.6 0.5 3.1 0.5
Level of Service C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.4 0.0 2.4 2.3
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2137
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 6: Airway Blvd & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 25 686 0 1108 401 0 372 782 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 25 686 0 1108 401 0 372 782 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1730 2787 3539 1583 4568
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1730 2787 3539 1583 4568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 27 746 0 1204 436 0 404 850
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 202 0 395 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 26 50 682 0 1204 234 0 859 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 27.1 27.1 27.1
Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 28.4 28.4 28.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.54 0.54 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 526 541 872 1896 848 2447
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.03 c0.34 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.09 0.78 0.63 0.27 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 12.6 12.8 16.5 8.6 6.6 7.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.2 0.1
Delay (s) 12.7 12.8 20.8 9.4 6.9 7.1
Level of Service B B C A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 20.0 8.7 7.1
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2138
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 7: Airway Blvd & I-580 EB Ramps/Kitty Hawk Rd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 619 213 396 38 33 106 49 536 205 89 198 149 Future Volume (vph) 619 213 396 38 33 106 49 536 205 89 198 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 2.7 4.0 2.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3392 1770 3311 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3392 1770 3311 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 673 232 430 41 36 115 53 583 223 97 215 162 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 312 0 0 93 0 46 0 0 113 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 673 232 118 41 36 22 53 760 0 97 264 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.9 19.9 19.9 7.0 7.0 11.3 9.0 25.4 4.3 20.7 Effective Green, g (s) 19.9 19.9 19.9 6.6 6.6 10.5 8.5 26.7 4.3 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.37 0.06 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 941 510 433 160 169 324 207 1247 104 1003 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.12 c0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 c0.22 c0.05 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.06 0.25 0.60 0.93 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 23.7 21.8 20.6 30.7 30.5 26.8 29.1 18.7 34.0 19.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.8 65.9 0.1 Delay (s) 25.9 22.0 20.7 31.0 30.8 26.8 29.4 19.5 99.9 19.3 Level of Service C C C C C C C B F B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.6 28.4 20.2 35.8
Approach LOS C C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.6 Sum of lost time (s) 15.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2139
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 8: Isabel Ave & Jack London Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 63 46 415 797 333 363 1018 96 168 1299 321 Future Volume (vph) 33 63 46 415 797 333 363 1018 96 168 1299 321 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 68 50 451 866 362 395 1107 104 183 1412 349 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 52 0 0 66 0 0 109
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 68 8 451 866 310 395 1107 38 183 1412 240 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 17.4 17.4 18.1 31.7 42.5 13.0 38.1 38.1 10.8 35.9 35.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 17.4 17.4 18.1 31.7 42.5 13.0 38.1 38.1 10.8 35.9 35.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.30 0.40 0.12 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 123 583 260 303 1062 716 422 1834 571 351 1728 538 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 c0.25 c0.24 0.04 c0.12 0.22 0.05 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.11 0.03 1.48 0.81 0.43 0.93 0.60 0.06 0.52 0.81 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 49.5 37.5 37.0 43.7 34.2 22.8 45.8 27.5 22.0 44.9 31.8 27.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.0 0.0 236.6 4.9 0.4 28.0 0.5 0.0 1.3 3.1 0.5 Delay (s) 50.9 37.6 37.0 280.3 39.1 23.2 73.9 28.1 22.1 46.3 34.9 27.7 Level of Service D D D F D C E C C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.5 100.5 39.0 34.7
Approach LOS D F D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 56.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.6 Sum of lost time (s) 21.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2140
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 9: Airway Blvd/Driveway & N Canyons Pkwy 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 84 49 993 965 0 771 0 933 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 84 49 993 965 0 771 0 933 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 91 53 1079 1049 0 838 0 1014 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 91 6 1079 1049 0 0 838 909 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 41.0 55.0 40.0 81.0
Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 43.0 57.0 39.8 85.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.55 0.39 0.83
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 184 1433 1030 683 2354
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.31 c0.56 c0.47 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.03 0.75 1.01 1.22 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 41.2 40.3 25.4 23.0 31.6 2.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 2.2 32.7 114.7 0.1
Delay (s) 41.5 40.4 27.7 55.7 146.3 2.4
Level of Service D D C E F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.1 41.5 67.5 0.0
Approach LOS D D E A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 53.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2141
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 10: Collier Canyon Rd & N Canyons Pkwy/Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 195 428 47 284 895 40 1 3 38 57 5 8 Future Volume (vph) 195 428 47 284 895 40 1 3 38 57 5 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1602 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1602 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 212 465 51 309 973 43 1 3 41 62 5 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 0 23 0 36 0 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 465 17 309 973 20 1 8 0 62 5 1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 19.8 19.8 17.3 27.3 27.3 0.9 7.0 2.8 8.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 21.1 21.1 17.3 28.6 28.6 0.9 8.0 2.8 8.3 8.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 534 1187 531 486 1609 719 25 203 78 245 208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.13 c0.17 c0.27 0.00 c0.01 c0.04 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.63 0.60 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.79 0.02 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 23.8 15.9 14.0 20.0 12.8 9.4 30.5 24.0 29.7 23.7 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 41.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 24.3 16.2 14.0 22.7 13.5 9.4 31.2 24.1 70.9 23.7 23.7 Level of Service C B B C B A C C E C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.4 15.5 24.3 62.2
Approach LOS B B C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 62.9 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2142
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 11: Isabel Ave/Campus Hill Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 311 198 276 539 68 461 302 91 11 76 2 Future Volume (vph) 2 311 198 276 539 68 461 302 91 11 76 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3480 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3480 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 338 215 300 586 74 501 328 99 12 83 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 163 0 7 0 0 0 57 0 0 2
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 338 52 300 653 0 501 328 42 12 83 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 18.0 18.0 9.7 26.1 19.2 32.6 32.6 1.6 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 19.3 19.3 9.7 27.4 19.2 33.9 33.9 1.6 14.5 14.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.34 0.24 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 35 848 668 601 1184 818 1490 666 35 637 285 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.10 c0.06 c0.19 c0.15 c0.09 0.01 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.39 0.07 0.49 0.55 0.61 0.22 0.06 0.34 0.13 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 25.7 23.7 33.1 21.5 27.3 14.8 13.8 38.9 27.7 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 38.9 26.0 23.7 33.3 22.1 28.2 14.9 13.8 41.0 27.7 27.0 Level of Service D C C C C C B B D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.1 25.6 22.0 29.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.5 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2143
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 12: Rutan Dr/BART W. Access & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 219 467 27 16 660 139 86 7 5 27 1 27 Future Volume (vph) 219 467 27 16 660 139 86 7 5 27 1 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1848 1770 1814 1770 1755 1770 1593 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.74 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1848 1770 1814 1374 1755 1395 1593 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 238 508 29 17 717 151 93 8 5 29 1 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 25 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 535 0 17 860 0 93 9 0 29 5 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 55.9 1.3 44.1 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 55.9 1.3 44.1 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.70 0.02 0.55 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 1291 28 999 185 236 188 215
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.29 0.01 c0.47 0.00 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.41 0.60 0.86 0.50 0.03 0.15 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 5.1 39.0 15.3 32.1 30.0 30.5 30.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 17.0 0.9 18.0 5.4 2.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 49.3 6.0 53.0 16.6 34.2 30.1 30.9 30.0
Level of Service D A D B C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.3 17.3 33.7 30.4
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2144
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 13: E. Airway Blvd & BART E. Access 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 110 294 95 10 575 277 227 150 13 53 13 13 Future Volume (vph) 110 294 95 10 575 277 227 150 13 53 13 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1795 1770 1772 1770 1841 1770 1723 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.55 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1795 1770 1772 1377 1841 1025 1723 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 120 320 103 11 625 301 247 163 14 58 14 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 21 0 0 4 0 0 11 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 411 0 11 905 0 247 173 0 58 17 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 48.8 0.8 41.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 48.8 0.8 41.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.61 0.01 0.52 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 181 1094 17 917 316 423 235 396
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.23 0.01 c0.51 0.09 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.37 0.64 0.98 0.78 0.40 0.24 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 7.8 39.4 19.0 28.9 26.1 25.1 23.9 Progression Factor 0.86 0.38 1.06 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.3 0.9 53.7 24.1 11.8 0.6 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 38.4 4.0 95.8 42.9 40.7 26.8 25.6 24.0
Level of Service D A F D D C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.6 43.5 34.9 25.1
Approach LOS B D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 32.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2145
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 14: Isabel Ave & Gateway Blvd./N. BART Parking 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 383 332 26 68 376 690 47 26 734 57 Future Volume (vph) 5 5 383 332 26 68 376 690 47 26 734 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1511 1504 1770 1660 3433 3505 1770 3501 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1511 1504 1770 1660 3433 3505 1770 3501 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 416 361 28 74 409 750 51 28 798 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 165 171 0 55 0 0 5 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 44 41 361 47 0 409 796 0 28 855 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 13.8 13.8 5.2 18.4 12.6 34.9 1.7 24.0 Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 13.8 13.8 5.2 18.4 12.6 34.9 1.7 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.26 0.18 0.49 0.02 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 291 289 128 426 604 1708 42 1173
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.03 c0.20 0.03 c0.12 0.23 0.02 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.15 0.14 2.82 0.11 0.67 0.46 0.66 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 35.3 24.0 23.9 33.1 20.3 27.5 12.1 34.6 20.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.9 0.2 0.2 840.3 0.1 3.0 0.9 33.3 3.9 Delay (s) 50.2 24.2 24.2 873.5 20.4 30.6 13.0 68.0 24.9 Level of Service D C C F C C B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.5 685.6 19.0 26.2
Approach LOS C F B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 125.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2146
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 15: Main Street & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 461 43 0 1123 0 7
Future Volume (Veh/h) 461 43 0 1123 0 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 501 47 0 1221 0 8
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 366 483
pX, platoon unblocked 0.94 0.88 0.94
vC, conflicting volume 548 932 191
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 311 35 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1176 861 1023
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 200 200 147 407 407 407 8
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 47 0 0 0 8
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1023
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2147
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 16: Sutter St & E. Airway Blvd. 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 324 19 55 679 45 59
Future Volume (vph) 324 19 55 679 45 59
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1770 1863 1684
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 1849 994 1863 1684
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 352 21 60 738 49 64
RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 51 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 372 0 60 738 62 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.1 86.1 86.1 10.9
Effective Green, g (s) 86.1 86.1 86.1 10.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1516 815 1527 174
v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.40 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.07 0.48 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 2.1 1.8 2.8 43.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.2
Delay (s) 2.5 1.8 3.0 45.0
Level of Service A A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.5 2.9 45.0
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2148
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 17: Portola Ave & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 36 289 694 742 404 40
Future Volume (vph) 36 289 694 742 404 40
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.88 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1627 1504 3433 3539 3492
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1627 1504 3433 3539 3492
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 39 314 754 807 439 43
RTOR Reduction (vph) 119 80 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 96 754 807 470 0
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 28.6 17.3 37.1 15.8
Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 28.6 17.3 37.1 15.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.55 0.33 0.71 0.30
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 226 820 1133 2505 1052
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.06 c0.22 0.23 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.11 0.66 0.32 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 5.7 15.0 2.8 14.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3
Delay (s) 20.7 5.8 16.5 2.9 15.0
Level of Service C A B A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.3 9.5 15.0
Approach LOS B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 52.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2149
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 18: Stealth & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 284 76 44 680 182 59
Future Volume (vph) 284 76 44 680 182 59
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1810 1770 1863 1736
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1810 938 1863 1736
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 309 83 48 739 198 64
RTOR Reduction (vph) 10 0 0 0 16 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 382 0 48 739 246 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 55.6 55.6 55.6 16.4
Effective Green, g (s) 55.6 55.6 55.6 16.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1257 651 1294 355
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.40 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.07 0.57 0.69
Uniform Delay, d1 4.7 3.9 6.1 29.4
Progression Factor 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.6 5.7
Delay (s) 4.4 3.9 6.7 35.2
Level of Service A A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 4.4 6.6 35.2
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2150
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 19: Isabel Ave & INP Road 3/INP Road 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 22 192 111 37 22 188 559 16 8 514 28 Future Volume (vph) 2 22 192 111 37 22 188 559 16 8 514 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1612 1770 1758 1770 3525 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1612 1770 1758 1770 3525 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 24 209 121 40 24 204 608 17 9 559 30
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 165 0 0 18 0 0 2 0 0 0 21
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 68 0 121 46 0 204 623 0 9 559 9 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 13.9 4.3 17.7 12.1 30.7 0.5 19.1 19.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 13.9 4.3 17.7 12.1 30.7 0.5 19.1 19.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.07 0.27 0.19 0.47 0.01 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 342 116 475 327 1654 13 1033 462
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.04 c0.07 c0.03 c0.12 0.18 0.01 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.20 1.04 0.09 0.62 0.37 0.69 0.54 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 32.2 21.1 30.5 17.8 24.5 11.1 32.3 19.4 16.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 0.2 95.5 0.0 3.6 0.1 96.2 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 37.6 21.4 126.1 17.9 28.2 11.3 128.6 20.0 16.4 Level of Service D C F B C B F C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.6 88.7 15.4 21.5
Approach LOS C F B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2151
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 20: Tranquility Circle/Cayetano Park & Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 323 90 41 676 0 207 0 37 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 323 90 41 676 0 207 0 37 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3423 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3423 1770 3539 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 351 98 45 735 0 225 0 40 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 424 0 45 735 0 225 13 0 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.1 1.4 24.5 8.4 15.9
Effective Green, g (s) 19.1 1.4 24.5 8.4 15.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.03 0.51 0.17 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1350 51 1791 307 520
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.03 c0.21 c0.13 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.88 0.41 0.73 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 23.4 7.4 18.9 11.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 83.1 0.1 8.7 0.0
Delay (s) 10.2 106.6 7.6 27.6 11.0
Level of Service B F A C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.2 13.3 25.1 0.0
Approach LOS B B C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2152
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 21: Sandalwood Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 351 10 0 717 0 56
Future Volume (Veh/h) 351 10 0 717 0 56
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 382 11 0 779 0 61
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 889
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 393 777 197
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 393 777 197
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 1162 334 812
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 255 138 390 390 0 61
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 11 0 0 0 61
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 812
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 6
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.8
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2153
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 22: Road 3/Montage Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 398 60 77 881 31 137 6 15 27 84 105 Future Volume (vph) 10 398 60 77 881 31 137 6 15 27 84 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4986 1770 5059 1770 1668 1770 1707 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4986 1770 5059 1770 1668 1770 1707 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 433 65 84 958 34 149 7 16 29 91 114
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 0 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 71 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 475 0 84 988 0 149 13 0 29 135 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 16.6 4.0 20.1 9.0 23.5 0.7 15.2 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 16.6 4.0 20.1 9.0 23.5 0.7 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.27 0.07 0.33 0.15 0.39 0.01 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 1361 116 1672 262 644 20 426
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.10 c0.05 c0.20 c0.08 0.01 0.02 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.34 0.72 0.59 0.56 0.02 1.45 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 17.7 27.8 16.9 24.0 11.5 30.0 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 130.5 0.1 19.9 0.5 2.8 0.0 363.8 0.4 Delay (s) 160.6 17.9 47.7 17.4 26.9 11.5 393.9 18.9
Level of Service F B D B C B F B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.9 19.8 24.8 65.4
Approach LOS C B C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2154
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 23: INP Road 1 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 506 17 0 1218 0 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 506 17 0 1218 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 550 18 0 1324 0 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 418 404
pX, platoon unblocked 0.98 0.85 0.98
vC, conflicting volume 568 1000 192
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 508 288 127
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1037 581 887
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 220 220 128 441 441 441 5
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 18 0 0 0 5
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 887
Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.1
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2155
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 24: Shea Center Drive & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 458 43 115 978 30 136 6 20 26 83 104 Future Volume (vph) 10 458 43 115 978 30 136 6 20 26 83 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5020 1770 5062 1770 1651 1770 1707 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5020 1770 5062 1770 1651 1770 1707 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 498 47 125 1063 33 148 7 22 28 90 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 15 0 0 61 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 534 0 125 1093 0 148 14 0 28 142 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 19.2 7.3 26.0 8.0 20.6 1.6 14.2 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 19.2 7.3 26.0 8.0 20.6 1.6 14.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.30 0.11 0.40 0.12 0.32 0.02 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 1489 199 2034 218 525 43 374
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.07 c0.22 c0.08 0.01 0.02 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.35 0.62 0.53 0.67 0.02 0.65 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 17.9 27.4 14.7 27.1 15.1 31.2 21.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 166.4 0.1 6.0 0.2 8.1 0.0 30.1 0.6 Delay (s) 198.5 18.0 33.4 15.0 35.2 15.1 61.4 22.1
Level of Service F B C B D B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.6 16.9 31.9 26.9
Approach LOS C B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2156
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Opt 2 25: INP Road 2 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 431 9 0 989 0 3
Future Volume (Veh/h) 431 9 0 989 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 468 10 0 1075 0 3
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 397 579
pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 0.96 0.96
vC, conflicting volume 478 831 161
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 329 695 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1184 363 1045
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 187 187 104 358 358 358 3
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 10 0 0 0 3
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1045
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2157
June 20, 2024 Page 16
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Appendices Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix F – 2040 Option 2 LOS Calculations – PM
Peak

EXHIBIT D
2158
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 1: Isabel Ave & Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 192 389 265 191 276 467 998 262 312 1330 18 Future Volume (vph) 10 192 389 265 191 276 467 998 262 312 1330 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 209 423 288 208 300 508 1085 285 339 1446 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 56 0 0 50 0 0 170 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 209 367 288 208 250 508 1085 115 339 1446 8 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 23.9 50.9 14.4 36.7 63.5 27.0 55.7 55.7 26.8 55.5 55.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 23.3 49.7 13.8 36.1 62.3 28.0 56.7 56.7 27.8 56.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.17 0.36 0.10 0.26 0.45 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 310 561 174 480 704 354 2059 641 681 2052 627 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.11 0.12 c0.16 0.11 0.07 c0.29 0.21 0.10 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.67 0.65 1.65 0.43 0.35 1.43 0.52 0.18 0.49 0.70 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 69.4 54.7 37.9 63.1 43.4 25.6 56.0 31.5 26.7 49.8 34.7 25.6 Progression Factor 1.12 0.78 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 195.4 4.9 2.3 318.9 0.6 0.3 211.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 2.0 0.0 Delay (s) 273.3 47.6 27.2 382.0 44.0 25.9 267.3 32.4 27.3 50.4 36.8 25.6 Level of Service F D C F D C F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 38.0 159.5 95.2 39.2
Approach LOS D F F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 78.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2159
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 2: Murrieta Blvd/Driveway & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 1087 248 239 941 2 208 2 494 7 1 3 Future Volume (vph) 2 1087 248 239 941 2 208 2 494 7 1 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3440 3433 3538 1681 1687 1583 1742 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3440 3433 3538 1681 1687 1583 1742 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 1182 270 260 1023 2 226 2 537 8 1 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1439 0 260 1025 0 118 110 233 0 9 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 52.7 11.7 63.7 18.0 18.0 18.0 0.7 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 51.8 11.7 62.8 17.4 17.4 17.4 0.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.51 0.12 0.62 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 1771 399 2208 290 291 273 12
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.42 c0.08 0.29 0.07 0.07 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.15
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.81 0.65 0.46 0.40 0.37 0.85 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 20.3 42.5 9.9 37.0 36.8 40.3 49.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.3 21.0 118.8 Delay (s) 52.0 23.1 45.4 10.0 37.3 37.1 61.4 168.7
Level of Service D C D B D D E F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.1 17.2 54.2 168.7
Approach LOS C B D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.6 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2160
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 3: Livermore Ave & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 836 678 151 45 410 69 285 700 191 221 1047 478 Future Volume (vph) 836 678 151 45 410 69 285 700 191 221 1047 478 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3425 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3425 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 909 737 164 49 446 75 310 761 208 240 1138 520 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 110 0 0 62 0 16 0 0 0 48
Lane Group Flow (vph) 909 737 54 49 446 13 310 953 0 240 1138 472 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 38.7 38.7 8.1 22.8 22.8 23.0 45.2 20.9 43.1 67.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 40.0 38.7 8.1 24.1 22.8 23.0 44.3 20.9 42.2 65.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.31 0.30 0.06 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.34 0.16 0.33 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 639 1098 475 111 661 280 315 1177 286 1158 801 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.21 0.03 c0.13 c0.18 0.28 0.14 c0.32 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.19
v/c Ratio 1.42 0.67 0.11 0.44 0.67 0.04 0.98 0.80 0.83 0.98 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 52.4 38.7 32.6 58.2 48.7 44.0 52.7 38.4 52.3 42.9 22.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 199.1 1.6 0.1 2.7 2.7 0.0 46.0 4.2 18.9 22.2 1.1 Delay (s) 251.6 40.3 32.7 61.0 51.4 44.1 98.8 42.6 71.3 65.1 23.4 Level of Service F D C E D D F D E E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 145.7 51.3 56.2 54.5
Approach LOS F D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 84.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 128.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2161
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 4: Isabel Ave & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 854 0 638 0 799 88 0 817 626 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 854 0 638 0 799 88 0 817 626
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 928 0 693 0 868 96 0 888 680
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 401
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 928 0 621 0 868 96 0 888 279 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Free NA Prot
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 32.5 29.5 70.0 29.5 29.5
Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 32.5 28.7 70.0 28.7 28.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.41 1.00 0.41 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1593 734 2084 1583 2084 649
v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 c0.39 0.17 0.17 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.84 0.41 0.06 0.42 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 13.7 16.5 14.6 0.0 14.7 14.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 8.5 0.6 0.0 0.6 2.0
Delay (s) 14.1 25.1 15.3 0.0 15.4 16.8
Level of Service B C B A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 18.8 13.7 16.0
Approach LOS A B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2162
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 5: Isabel Ave & I-580 EB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 408 0 361 0 0 0 0 850 728 0 1133 666 Future Volume (vph) 408 0 361 0 0 0 0 850 728 0 1133 666 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 443 0 392 0 0 0 0 924 791 0 1232 724
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 443 0 310 0 0 0 0 924 791 0 1232 724 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 34.6 55.0 34.6 55.0
Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 11.4 35.6 55.0 35.6 55.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.65 1.00 0.65 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 711 577 3291 1583 3291 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.18 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.50 0.46
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.53 0.28 0.49 0.37 0.45
Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 19.4 4.1 0.0 4.5 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.9
Delay (s) 21.0 19.9 4.3 1.1 4.8 0.9
Level of Service C B A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.5 0.0 2.8 3.4
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2163
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 6: Airway Blvd & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 159 1 197 0 823 378 0 737 732 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 159 1 197 0 823 378 0 737 732 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1686 2787 3539 1583 4705
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1686 2787 3539 1583 4705
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 173 1 214 0 895 411 0 801 796
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 182 0 0 108 0 168 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 92 82 32 0 895 303 0 1429 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.4 10.4 10.4 50.3 50.3 50.3
Effective Green, g (s) 10.4 10.4 10.4 51.6 51.6 51.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.74 0.74
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 249 250 414 2608 1166 3468
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.05 0.25 c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.32 0.07 0.34 0.25 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 26.6 25.6 3.2 2.9 3.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 2.28 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3
Delay (s) 27.1 26.9 25.6 2.7 7.2 3.8
Level of Service C C C A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 26.3 4.1 3.8
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2164
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 7: Airway Blvd & I-580 EB Ramps/Kitty Hawk Rd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 596 239 366 97 112 221 120 503 194 150 403 333 Future Volume (vph) 596 239 366 97 112 221 120 503 194 150 403 333 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 2.7 4.0 2.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3391 1770 3299 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3391 1770 3299 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 648 260 398 105 122 240 130 547 211 163 438 362 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 301 0 0 71 0 25 0 0 109 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 648 260 97 105 122 169 130 733 0 163 691 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.2 33.2 33.2 15.1 15.1 31.7 20.1 59.1 16.6 55.6 Effective Green, g (s) 33.2 33.2 33.2 14.7 14.7 30.9 19.6 60.4 16.6 56.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 814 441 375 185 195 399 247 1462 209 1340 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.14 0.06 c0.07 0.05 0.07 c0.22 c0.09 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.58 0.25 0.56 0.62 0.42 0.52 0.50 0.77 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 50.2 47.3 43.4 59.6 60.0 46.8 55.8 28.8 59.9 31.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.81 1.04 0.94 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 1.3 0.1 2.3 4.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 14.4 1.3 Delay (s) 55.2 48.6 43.5 61.9 64.4 47.1 44.9 24.1 76.8 30.8 Level of Service E D D E E D D C E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 50.3 55.0 27.2 38.6
Approach LOS D E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 42.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2165
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 8: Isabel Ave & Jack London Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 225 756 257 224 240 231 102 1327 693 280 1570 91 Future Volume (vph) 225 756 257 224 240 231 102 1327 693 280 1570 91 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 245 822 279 243 261 251 111 1442 753 304 1707 99 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 112 0 0 36 0 0 194 0 0 58
Lane Group Flow (vph) 245 822 167 243 261 215 111 1442 559 304 1707 41 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.6 34.1 34.1 17.7 37.2 52.9 8.7 49.8 49.8 15.7 56.8 56.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.6 34.1 34.1 17.7 37.2 52.9 8.7 49.8 49.8 15.7 56.8 56.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.27 0.38 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 361 871 389 226 950 665 215 1828 569 389 2085 649 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.23 c0.14 0.07 c0.04 0.03 0.28 c0.09 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.10 c0.35 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.94 0.42 1.07 0.27 0.32 0.51 0.78 0.98 0.78 0.81 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 59.6 51.2 43.9 60.4 39.9 30.1 62.8 39.6 43.9 59.7 36.2 24.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 18.2 0.7 81.2 0.1 0.2 2.0 2.3 33.0 9.8 2.6 0.0 Delay (s) 64.6 69.4 44.7 141.6 40.1 30.4 64.9 41.9 76.9 69.5 38.9 24.7 Level of Service E E D F D C E D E E D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 63.4 69.6 54.5 42.6
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 54.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 138.5 Sum of lost time (s) 21.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2166
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 9: Airway Blvd/Driveway & N Canyons Pkwy 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 884 322 1052 35 0 99 0 855 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 884 322 1052 35 0 99 0 855 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 961 350 1143 38 0 108 0 929 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 325 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 961 139 1143 38 0 0 108 604 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 34.0 54.5 92.5 19.5 74.0
Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 56.5 94.5 19.3 78.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.47 0.79 0.16 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1061 474 1616 1467 284 1858
v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 c0.33 0.02 c0.06 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.29 0.70 0.02 0.38 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 32.2 25.1 2.7 45.0 9.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 52.9 33.7 26.6 2.7 45.8 9.4
Level of Service D C C A D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 47.8 25.8 13.2 0.0
Approach LOS D C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 30.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2167
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 10: Collier Canyon Rd & N Canyons Pkwy/Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 117 955 107 64 409 44 3 7 326 39 4 85 Future Volume (vph) 117 955 107 64 409 44 3 7 326 39 4 85 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1590 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1590 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 1038 116 70 445 48 3 8 354 42 4 92
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 66 0 0 29 0 221 0 0 0 67
Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 1038 50 70 445 19 3 141 0 42 4 25 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 28.4 28.4 4.2 26.0 26.0 0.9 16.5 3.3 18.9 18.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.6 29.7 29.7 4.2 27.3 27.3 0.9 17.5 3.3 18.3 18.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 331 1536 687 108 1412 631 23 406 85 498 423 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.29 c0.04 0.13 0.00 c0.09 c0.02 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.67 0.07 0.64 0.31 0.03 0.13 0.34 0.49 0.00 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 28.9 15.4 11.3 31.3 14.1 12.4 33.3 20.7 31.7 18.3 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.1 0.0 12.6 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 29.7 16.6 11.3 44.0 14.2 12.5 35.9 21.3 36.1 18.3 18.6 Level of Service C B B D B B D C D B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.4 17.8 21.4 24.0
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.4 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2168
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 11: Isabel Ave/Campus Hill Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 807 402 431 483 10 290 224 91 4 185 6 Future Volume (vph) 6 807 402 431 483 10 290 224 91 4 185 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3528 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3528 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 877 437 468 525 11 315 243 99 4 201 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 239 0 1 0 0 0 71 0 0 6
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 877 198 468 535 0 315 243 28 4 201 1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.5 34.0 34.0 13.2 45.7 11.1 25.1 25.1 1.5 15.9 15.9 Effective Green, g (s) 1.5 35.3 35.3 13.2 47.0 11.1 26.4 26.4 1.5 15.0 15.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.14 0.51 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 28 1352 1064 712 1794 412 1011 452 28 574 256 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.25 c0.09 0.15 c0.09 0.07 0.00 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.64 0.18 0.65 0.29 0.76 0.24 0.06 0.14 0.35 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 44.8 23.4 18.9 37.4 13.1 39.3 25.3 24.0 44.8 34.3 32.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 1.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 46.6 24.5 19.0 39.1 13.2 46.8 25.4 24.0 45.6 34.7 32.4 Level of Service D C B D B D C C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.8 25.3 35.4 34.8
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2169
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 12: Rutan Dr/BART W. Access & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 689 50 39 476 27 44 1 2 142 13 225 Future Volume (vph) 26 689 50 39 476 27 44 1 2 142 13 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1844 1770 1848 1770 1676 1770 1598 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.75 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1844 1770 1848 582 1676 1408 1598 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 749 54 42 517 29 48 1 2 154 14 245
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 200 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 800 0 42 544 0 48 1 0 154 59 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 49.4 4.0 49.2 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 Effective Green, g (s) 4.2 49.4 4.0 49.2 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.62 0.05 0.62 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 92 1138 88 1136 106 305 256 291
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.43 0.02 c0.29 0.00 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.11
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.70 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.00 0.60 0.20
Uniform Delay, d1 36.4 10.3 36.9 8.4 29.1 26.7 30.0 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 3.6 3.5 1.2 3.0 0.0 3.9 0.3
Delay (s) 38.3 13.9 41.1 8.4 32.1 26.7 33.9 28.0
Level of Service D B D A C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 14.8 10.7 31.8 30.2
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2170
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 13: E. Airway Blvd & BART E. Access 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 13 511 309 25 265 54 164 12 14 284 124 113 Future Volume (vph) 13 511 309 25 265 54 164 12 14 284 124 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1757 1770 1815 1770 1713 1770 1730 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.73 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1757 1770 1815 792 1713 1377 1730 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 555 336 27 288 59 178 13 15 309 135 123 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 9 0 0 11 0 0 42 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 867 0 27 338 0 178 17 0 309 216 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.4 45.9 1.6 44.1 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 Effective Green, g (s) 3.4 45.9 1.6 44.1 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.57 0.02 0.55 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 1008 35 1000 202 438 352 443
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.49 c0.02 0.19 0.01 0.12
v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.22
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.85 0.77 0.33 0.88 0.03 0.87 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 36.9 14.3 39.0 9.9 28.5 22.3 28.5 25.2 Progression Factor 1.18 0.88 1.09 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 7.5 65.9 0.8 33.0 0.0 21.0 0.8 Delay (s) 44.6 20.3 108.5 11.4 61.5 22.3 49.5 26.1
Level of Service D C F B E C D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.7 18.4 56.2 38.9
Approach LOS C B E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2171
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 14: Isabel Ave & Gateway Blvd./N. BART Parking 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 87 45 448 128 22 91 482 620 335 167 1007 37 Future Volume (vph) 87 45 448 128 22 91 482 620 335 167 1007 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1552 1504 1770 1638 3433 3353 1770 3521 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1552 1504 1770 1638 3433 3353 1770 3521 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 49 487 139 24 99 524 674 364 182 1095 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 192 228 0 89 0 0 80 0 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 81 35 139 34 0 524 958 0 182 1132 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 10.8 10.8 6.1 8.4 16.2 40.2 7.1 31.1 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 10.8 10.8 6.1 8.4 16.2 40.2 7.1 31.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.09 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 208 202 134 171 693 1680 156 1365 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.05 c0.08 0.02 c0.15 0.29 c0.10 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.38 0.17 1.03 0.20 0.75 0.57 1.16 0.82
Uniform Delay, d1 33.8 31.6 30.7 37.0 32.8 30.1 13.9 36.5 22.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 1.2 0.4 88.0 0.5 4.7 0.4 123.8 4.3 Delay (s) 36.0 32.8 31.1 125.0 33.4 34.8 14.4 160.4 26.4 Level of Service D C C F C C B F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 32.6 82.0 21.2 44.9
Approach LOS C F C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 35.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2172
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 15: Main Street & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1221 89 0 642 0 61
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1221 89 0 642 0 61
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1327 97 0 698 0 66
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 366 483
pX, platoon unblocked 0.79 0.80 0.79
vC, conflicting volume 1424 1608 491
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 596 651 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 770 322 854
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 531 531 362 233 233 233 66
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 97 0 0 0 66
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 854
Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.6
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2173
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 16: Sutter St & E. Airway Blvd. 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 562 61 126 282 32 61
Future Volume (vph) 562 61 126 282 32 61
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1838 1770 1863 1669
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1838 681 1863 1669
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 611 66 137 307 35 66
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 58 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 674 0 137 307 43 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 58.4 58.4 58.4 8.6
Effective Green, g (s) 58.4 58.4 58.4 8.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1431 530 1450 191
v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 0.16 c0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.25 0.21 0.22
Uniform Delay, d1 2.9 2.3 2.1 30.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.5
Delay (s) 4.0 2.5 2.2 30.7
Level of Service A A A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 4.0 2.3 30.7
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 5.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2174
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 17: Portola Ave & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 143 818 333 849 804 75
Future Volume (vph) 143 818 333 849 804 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.89 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1641 1504 3433 3539 3494
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1641 1504 3433 3539 3494
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 155 889 362 923 874 82
RTOR Reduction (vph) 92 38 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 436 478 362 923 947 0
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.2 39.8 11.6 44.4 28.8
Effective Green, g (s) 24.2 39.8 11.6 44.4 28.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.52 0.15 0.58 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 518 781 519 2051 1313
v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 c0.32 0.11 0.26 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.61 0.69 0.45 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 12.9 30.8 9.1 20.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 11.7 1.4 4.0 0.1 1.9
Delay (s) 36.1 14.3 34.9 9.3 22.4
Level of Service D B C A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.3 16.5 22.4
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2175
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 18: Stealth & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 562 247 101 213 131 61
Future Volume (vph) 562 247 101 213 131 61
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1786 1770 1863 1724
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1786 442 1863 1724
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 611 268 110 232 142 66
RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 0 0 0 24 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 864 0 110 232 184 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 57.8 57.8 57.8 14.2
Effective Green, g (s) 57.8 57.8 57.8 14.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1290 319 1346 306
v/s Ratio Prot c0.48 0.12 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.25
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.34 0.17 0.60
Uniform Delay, d1 5.9 4.1 3.5 30.2
Progression Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.6 0.0 3.3
Delay (s) 7.0 4.7 3.5 33.6
Level of Service A A A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 7.0 3.9 33.6
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2176
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 19: Isabel Ave & INP Road 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 44 87 225 42 51 30 242 445 111 55 944 19 Future Volume (vph) 44 87 225 42 51 30 242 445 111 55 944 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1661 1770 1758 1770 3433 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1661 1770 1758 1770 3433 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 95 245 46 55 33 263 484 121 60 1026 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 109 0 0 25 0 0 19 0 0 0 13
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 231 0 46 63 0 263 586 0 60 1026 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 17.1 3.0 17.1 16.2 43.2 3.7 30.7 30.7 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 17.1 3.0 17.1 16.2 43.2 3.7 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.21 0.04 0.21 0.20 0.52 0.04 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 63 342 63 362 345 1786 78 1309 585
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.14 0.03 0.04 c0.15 0.17 0.03 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.67 0.73 0.17 0.76 0.32 0.76 0.78 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 39.6 30.3 39.5 27.1 31.5 11.5 39.2 23.2 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 41.2 5.2 34.9 0.2 9.5 0.1 35.7 3.1 0.0 Delay (s) 80.8 35.6 74.5 27.3 41.1 11.6 74.9 26.3 16.5
Level of Service F D E C D B E C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.2 43.5 20.5 28.8
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2177
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 20: Tranquility Circle/Cayetano Park & Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 548 326 149 661 13 234 0 62 13 0 29 Future Volume (vph) 29 548 326 149 661 13 234 0 62 13 0 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3341 1770 3529 1770 1583 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3341 1770 3529 1770 1583 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 596 354 162 718 14 254 0 67 14 0 32
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 71 0 0 1 0 0 46 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 879 0 162 731 0 254 21 0 14 3 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 29.6 11.8 38.2 18.2 26.2 0.5 8.5 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 29.6 11.8 38.2 18.2 26.2 0.5 8.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.35 0.14 0.45 0.22 0.31 0.01 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 1175 248 1602 383 493 10 159
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.26 c0.09 0.21 c0.14 c0.01 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.74 0.65 0.45 0.66 0.04 1.40 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 39.6 23.9 34.2 15.7 30.1 20.1 41.8 34.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 2.6 6.0 0.2 4.2 0.0 438.5 0.0 Delay (s) 44.9 26.6 40.2 16.0 34.4 20.2 480.3 34.1
Level of Service D C D B C C F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 27.2 20.4 31.4 169.9
Approach LOS C C C F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 84.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2178
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 21: Sandalwood Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 613 10 0 823 0 55
Future Volume (Veh/h) 613 10 0 823 0 55
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 666 11 0 895 0 60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 889
pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.95 0.95
vC, conflicting volume 677 1119 339
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 555 1020 198
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 961 221 769
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 444 233 448 448 0 60
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 11 0 0 0 60
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 769
Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 6
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 10.1
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2179
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 22: Road 3/Montage Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 125 1031 126 89 491 143 119 21 122 36 67 32 Future Volume (vph) 125 1031 126 89 491 143 119 21 122 36 67 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5002 1770 4914 1770 1625 1770 1772 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5002 1770 4914 1770 1625 1770 1772 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 136 1121 137 97 534 155 129 23 133 39 73 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 60 0 0 100 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 1242 0 97 629 0 129 56 0 39 79 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 20.6 5.8 18.8 5.6 14.7 1.7 10.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 20.6 5.8 18.8 5.6 14.7 1.7 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.35 0.10 0.32 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1752 174 1571 168 406 51 325
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.25 0.05 0.13 c0.07 c0.03 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.70 0.55 0.40 0.76 0.13 0.76 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 16.5 25.2 15.6 25.9 17.1 28.3 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 1.3 3.8 0.1 18.7 0.1 48.9 0.3 Delay (s) 28.3 17.8 29.1 15.7 44.7 17.2 77.2 20.9
Level of Service C B C B D B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.8 17.4 29.7 35.8
Approach LOS B B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2180
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 23: INP Road 1 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1284 36 0 517 0 41
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1284 36 0 517 0 41
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1396 39 0 562 0 45
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 418 404
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84
vC, conflicting volume 1435 1603 485
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 833 1034 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 665 191 906
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 558 558 318 187 187 187 45
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 39 0 0 0 45
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 906
Volume to Capacity 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2181
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 24: Shea Center Drive & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 1111 90 133 367 142 119 20 163 36 66 31 Future Volume (vph) 124 1111 90 133 367 142 119 20 163 36 66 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5028 1770 4873 1770 1614 1770 1773 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5028 1770 4873 1770 1614 1770 1773 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 135 1208 98 145 399 154 129 22 177 39 72 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 74 0 0 135 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 135 1296 0 145 479 0 129 64 0 39 78 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 20.6 7.3 21.2 4.7 14.2 1.4 10.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 20.6 7.3 21.2 4.7 14.2 1.4 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.35 0.12 0.36 0.08 0.24 0.02 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 199 1740 217 1736 139 385 41 324
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.26 c0.08 0.10 c0.07 c0.04 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.74 0.66 0.27 0.92 0.16 0.95 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 17.1 24.9 13.6 27.2 17.9 29.0 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.8 1.7 7.5 0.0 54.3 0.2 120.9 0.3 Delay (s) 34.2 18.9 32.5 13.7 81.5 18.1 149.9 21.1
Level of Service C B C B F B F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.3 17.6 43.1 55.8
Approach LOS C B D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2182
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Opt 2 25: INP Road 2 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1171 18 0 723 0 20
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1171 18 0 723 0 20
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1273 20 0 786 0 22
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 397 579
pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 0.81 0.81
vC, conflicting volume 1293 1545 434
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 533 844 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 833 244 877
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 509 509 275 262 262 262 22
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 20 0 0 0 22
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 877
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2183
June 20, 2024 Page 17
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Appendices Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix G – 2040 Option 2 Mitigated LOS
Calculations – AM peak

EXHIBIT D
2184
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 1: Isabel Ave & Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 150 414 235 346 138 226 1078 211 352 1234 31 Future Volume (vph) 1 150 414 235 346 138 226 1078 211 352 1234 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 163 450 255 376 150 246 1172 229 383 1341 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 99 0 0 79 0 0 154 0 0 24
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 163 351 255 376 71 246 1172 75 383 1341 10 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 17.6 32.6 14.4 31.3 45.5 15.0 30.3 30.3 14.2 29.5 29.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.1 17.0 31.4 13.8 30.7 44.3 16.0 31.3 31.3 15.2 30.5 29.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.00 0.18 0.33 0.14 0.32 0.46 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.32 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1 330 519 255 597 732 295 1663 517 545 1620 487 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.09 0.10 c0.14 c0.20 0.01 c0.14 0.23 0.11 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.01
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.49 0.67 1.00 0.62 0.09 0.83 0.70 0.14 0.70 0.82 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 47.8 35.4 27.7 40.9 27.6 14.4 38.5 28.1 22.7 38.1 30.1 23.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 900.0 1.1 3.4 56.3 2.0 0.0 17.9 1.7 0.2 4.0 4.0 0.0 Delay (s) 947.8 36.6 31.2 97.3 29.7 14.5 56.5 29.8 23.0 42.2 34.2 23.0 Level of Service F D C F C B E C C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 34.1 48.8 32.9 35.7
Approach LOS C D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 36.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.7 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2185
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 2: Murrieta Blvd/Driveway & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 580 105 295 1240 1 198 6 139 1 3 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 580 105 295 1240 1 198 6 139 1 3 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 3458 3433 3539 1681 1690 1583 1840
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 3458 3433 3539 1681 1690 1583 1840
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 630 114 321 1348 1 215 7 151 1 3 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 727 0 321 1349 0 112 110 23 0 4 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.8 9.9 30.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 0.5
Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 9.9 29.8 8.1 8.1 8.1 0.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.19 0.56 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.01
Clearance Time (s) 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1029 636 1974 254 256 240 17
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 0.09 c0.38 c0.07 0.07 c0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.50 0.68 0.44 0.42 0.09 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 19.5 8.4 20.5 20.5 19.4 26.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 2.5
Delay (s) 18.5 19.7 9.2 21.0 20.9 19.5 28.8
Level of Service B B A C C B C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.5 11.2 20.4 28.8
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.4 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2186
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 3: Livermore Ave & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 324 287 137 56 649 86 268 485 73 127 723 454 Future Volume (vph) 324 287 137 56 649 86 268 485 73 127 723 454 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3470 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3470 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 352 312 149 61 705 93 291 527 79 138 786 493 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 104 0 0 65 0 12 0 0 0 47
Lane Group Flow (vph) 352 312 45 61 705 28 291 594 0 138 786 446 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 5.1 25.9 25.9 4.6 25.4 25.4 13.3 28.6 9.8 25.1 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 5.1 27.2 25.9 4.6 26.7 25.4 13.3 27.7 9.8 24.2 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.32 0.31 0.05 0.31 0.30 0.16 0.33 0.12 0.29 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 299 1133 482 95 1112 473 277 1132 204 1008 620 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.09 0.03 c0.20 c0.16 c0.17 0.08 0.22 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 0.25
v/c Ratio 1.17 0.27 0.09 0.64 0.63 0.05 1.05 0.52 0.67 0.77 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 39.9 21.5 21.1 39.3 24.9 21.2 35.8 23.2 36.0 27.9 24.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 109.0 0.1 0.0 13.8 1.1 0.0 67.9 0.4 8.5 3.8 3.9 Delay (s) 148.9 21.6 21.1 53.2 26.1 21.2 103.7 23.6 44.6 31.7 28.7 Level of Service F C C D C C F C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 76.6 27.5 49.6 31.9
Approach LOS E C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 44.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 84.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2187
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 4: Isabel Ave & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 678 0 514 0 599 118 116 1022 444 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 678 0 514 0 599 118 116 1022 444 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5060 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 5085 1583 4020 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 737 0 559 0 651 128 126 1111 483
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 282
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 737 0 535 0 651 128 0 1237 201 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Free Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.2 26.2 25.8 60.0 25.8 25.8
Effective Green, g (s) 26.2 26.2 25.0 60.0 25.0 25.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.42 1.00 0.42 0.42
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1499 691 2118 1583 1675 659
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.34 0.13 0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.31
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.77 0.30 0.08 0.73 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 14.3 11.7 0.0 14.7 11.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 4.9 0.3 0.0 2.9 1.1
Delay (s) 12.2 19.3 9.9 0.0 17.7 12.8
Level of Service B B A A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 15.2 8.3 16.3
Approach LOS A B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2188
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 5: Isabel Ave & I-580 EB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 275 0 351 0 0 0 0 761 501 0 1204 534 Future Volume (vph) 275 0 351 0 0 0 0 761 501 0 1204 534 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 299 0 382 0 0 0 0 827 545 0 1309 580
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 299 0 296 0 0 0 0 827 545 0 1309 580 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 10.6 40.4 60.0 40.4 60.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 10.6 41.4 60.0 41.4 60.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.69 1.00 0.69 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 492 3508 1583 3508 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.16 0.26
v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.34 c0.37
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.60 0.23 0.34 0.37 0.36
Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 22.7 3.4 0.0 3.8 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.5
Delay (s) 22.5 24.1 3.6 0.5 3.1 0.5
Level of Service C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.4 0.0 2.4 2.3
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2189
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 6: Airway Blvd & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 25 686 0 1108 401 0 372 782 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 45 25 686 0 1108 401 0 372 782 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.89
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1730 2787 3539 1583 4568
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1730 2787 3539 1583 4568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 49 27 746 0 1204 436 0 404 850
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 202 0 395 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 26 50 682 0 1204 234 0 859 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 27.1 27.1 27.1
Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 28.4 28.4 28.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.54 0.54 0.54
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 526 541 872 1896 848 2447
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.03 c0.34 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.09 0.78 0.63 0.27 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 12.6 12.8 16.5 8.6 6.6 7.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.2 0.1
Delay (s) 12.7 12.8 20.8 9.4 6.9 7.1
Level of Service B B C A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 20.0 8.7 7.1
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2190
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 7: Airway Blvd & I-580 EB Ramps/Kitty Hawk Rd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 619 213 396 38 33 106 49 536 205 89 198 149 Future Volume (vph) 619 213 396 38 33 106 49 536 205 89 198 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 2.7 4.0 2.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3392 1770 3311 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3392 1770 3311 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 673 232 430 41 36 115 53 583 223 97 215 162 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 312 0 0 93 0 46 0 0 113 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 673 232 118 41 36 22 53 760 0 97 264 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.9 19.9 19.9 7.0 7.0 11.3 9.0 25.4 4.3 20.7 Effective Green, g (s) 19.9 19.9 19.9 6.6 6.6 10.5 8.5 26.7 4.3 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.37 0.06 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 941 510 433 160 169 324 207 1247 104 1003 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.12 c0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 c0.22 c0.05 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.06 0.25 0.60 0.93 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 23.7 21.8 20.6 30.7 30.5 26.8 29.1 18.7 34.0 19.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.8 65.9 0.1 Delay (s) 25.9 22.0 20.7 31.0 30.8 26.8 29.4 19.5 99.9 19.3 Level of Service C C C C C C C B F B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.6 28.4 20.2 35.8
Approach LOS C C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.6 Sum of lost time (s) 15.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2191
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 8: Isabel Ave & Jack London Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 63 46 415 797 333 363 1018 96 168 1299 321 Future Volume (vph) 33 63 46 415 797 333 363 1018 96 168 1299 321 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 68 50 451 866 362 395 1107 104 183 1412 349 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 52 0 0 66 0 0 109
Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 68 8 451 866 310 395 1107 38 183 1412 240 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 17.4 17.4 18.1 31.7 42.5 13.0 38.1 38.1 10.8 35.9 35.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 17.4 17.4 18.1 31.7 42.5 13.0 38.1 38.1 10.8 35.9 35.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.30 0.40 0.12 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 123 583 260 303 1062 716 422 1834 571 351 1728 538 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 c0.25 c0.24 0.04 c0.12 0.22 0.05 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.11 0.03 1.48 0.81 0.43 0.93 0.60 0.06 0.52 0.81 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 49.5 37.5 37.0 43.7 34.2 22.8 45.8 27.5 22.0 44.9 31.8 27.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.0 0.0 236.6 4.9 0.4 28.0 0.5 0.0 1.3 3.1 0.5 Delay (s) 50.9 37.6 37.0 280.3 39.1 23.2 73.9 28.1 22.1 46.3 34.9 27.7 Level of Service D D D F D C E C C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.5 100.5 39.0 34.7
Approach LOS D F D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 56.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.6 Sum of lost time (s) 21.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2192
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 9: Airway Blvd/Driveway & N Canyons Pkwy 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 84 49 993 965 0 771 0 933 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 84 49 993 965 0 771 0 933 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 91 53 1079 1049 0 838 0 1014 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 91 6 1079 1049 0 0 838 909 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 41.0 55.0 40.0 81.0
Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 43.0 57.0 39.8 85.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.55 0.39 0.83
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 184 1433 1030 683 2354
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.31 c0.56 c0.47 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.03 0.75 1.01 1.22 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 41.2 40.3 25.4 23.0 31.6 2.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 2.2 32.7 114.7 0.1
Delay (s) 41.5 40.4 27.7 55.7 146.3 2.4
Level of Service D D C E F A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.1 41.5 67.5 0.0
Approach LOS D D E A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 53.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 103.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2193
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 10: Collier Canyon Rd & N Canyons Pkwy/Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 195 428 47 284 895 40 1 3 38 57 5 8 Future Volume (vph) 195 428 47 284 895 40 1 3 38 57 5 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1602 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1602 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 212 465 51 309 973 43 1 3 41 62 5 9
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 0 23 0 36 0 0 0 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 465 17 309 973 20 1 8 0 62 5 1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 19.8 19.8 17.3 27.3 27.3 0.9 7.0 2.8 8.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 21.1 21.1 17.3 28.6 28.6 0.9 8.0 2.8 8.3 8.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 534 1187 531 486 1609 719 25 203 78 245 208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.13 c0.17 c0.27 0.00 c0.01 c0.04 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.63 0.60 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.79 0.02 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 23.8 15.9 14.0 20.0 12.8 9.4 30.5 24.0 29.7 23.7 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 41.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 24.3 16.2 14.0 22.7 13.5 9.4 31.2 24.1 70.9 23.7 23.7 Level of Service C B B C B A C C E C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.4 15.5 24.3 62.2
Approach LOS B B C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 62.9 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2194
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 11: Isabel Ave/Campus Hill Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 311 198 276 539 68 461 302 91 11 76 2 Future Volume (vph) 2 311 198 276 539 68 461 302 91 11 76 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3480 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3480 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 338 215 300 586 74 501 328 99 12 83 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 163 0 7 0 0 0 57 0 0 2
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 338 52 300 653 0 501 328 42 12 83 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 18.0 18.0 9.7 26.1 19.2 32.6 32.6 1.6 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 19.3 19.3 9.7 27.4 19.2 33.9 33.9 1.6 14.5 14.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.34 0.24 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 35 848 668 601 1184 818 1490 666 35 637 285 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.10 c0.06 c0.19 c0.15 c0.09 0.01 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.39 0.07 0.49 0.55 0.61 0.22 0.06 0.34 0.13 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 25.7 23.7 33.1 21.5 27.3 14.8 13.8 38.9 27.7 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 38.9 26.0 23.7 33.3 22.1 28.2 14.9 13.8 41.0 27.7 27.0 Level of Service D C C C C C B B D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.1 25.6 22.0 29.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.5 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2195
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 12: Rutan Dr/BART W. Access & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 219 467 27 16 660 139 86 7 5 27 1 27 Future Volume (vph) 219 467 27 16 660 139 86 7 5 27 1 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1848 1770 1814 1770 1755 1770 1593 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.74 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1848 1770 1814 1374 1755 1395 1593 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 238 508 29 17 717 151 93 8 5 29 1 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 25 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 535 0 17 860 0 93 9 0 29 5 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 55.9 1.3 44.1 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 55.9 1.3 44.1 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.70 0.02 0.55 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 1291 28 999 185 236 188 215
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.29 0.01 c0.47 0.00 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.41 0.60 0.86 0.50 0.03 0.15 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 5.1 39.0 15.3 32.1 30.0 30.5 30.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 17.0 0.9 18.0 5.4 2.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 49.3 6.0 53.0 16.6 34.2 30.1 30.9 30.0
Level of Service D A D B C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.3 17.3 33.7 30.4
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2196
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 13: E. Airway Blvd & BART E. Access 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 110 294 95 10 575 277 227 150 13 53 13 13 Future Volume (vph) 110 294 95 10 575 277 227 150 13 53 13 13 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1795 1770 1772 1770 1841 1770 1723 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.55 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1795 1770 1772 1377 1841 1025 1723 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 120 320 103 11 625 301 247 163 14 58 14 14 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 21 0 0 4 0 0 11 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 411 0 11 905 0 247 173 0 58 17 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 48.8 0.8 41.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 48.8 0.8 41.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.61 0.01 0.52 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 181 1094 17 917 316 423 235 396
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.23 0.01 c0.51 0.09 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.37 0.64 0.98 0.78 0.40 0.24 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 7.8 39.4 19.0 28.9 26.1 25.1 23.9 Progression Factor 0.86 0.38 1.06 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.3 0.9 53.7 24.1 11.8 0.6 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 38.4 4.0 95.8 42.9 40.7 26.8 25.6 24.0
Level of Service D A F D D C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.6 43.5 34.9 25.1
Approach LOS B D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 32.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2197
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 14: Isabel Ave & Gateway Blvd./N. BART Parking 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 383 332 26 68 376 690 47 26 734 57 Future Volume (vph) 5 5 383 332 26 68 376 690 47 26 734 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1511 1504 1770 1660 3433 3505 1770 3501 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1511 1504 1770 1660 3433 3505 1770 3501 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 416 361 28 74 409 750 51 28 798 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 171 173 0 46 0 0 4 0 0 5 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 38 39 361 56 0 409 797 0 28 855 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 14.0 14.0 19.3 32.7 11.2 34.6 1.5 24.9 Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 14.0 14.0 19.3 32.7 11.2 34.6 1.5 24.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.38 0.13 0.41 0.02 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 247 246 400 635 450 1420 31 1020
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.03 c0.20 0.03 c0.12 0.23 0.02 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.03
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.15 0.15 0.90 0.08 0.90 0.56 0.90 0.83
Uniform Delay, d1 42.2 30.6 30.6 32.1 16.8 36.5 19.5 41.8 28.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 21.7 0.2 0.3 22.9 0.0 21.8 1.6 120.6 8.2 Delay (s) 63.9 30.9 30.9 55.1 16.8 58.4 21.1 162.5 36.5 Level of Service E C C E B E C F D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.3 46.6 33.7 40.5
Approach LOS C D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 37.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2198
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 15: Main Street & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 461 43 0 1123 0 7
Future Volume (Veh/h) 461 43 0 1123 0 7
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 501 47 0 1221 0 8
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 366 483
pX, platoon unblocked 0.94 0.88 0.94
vC, conflicting volume 548 932 191
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 311 35 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1176 861 1023
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 200 200 147 407 407 407 8
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 47 0 0 0 8
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1023
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2199
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 16: Sutter St & E. Airway Blvd. 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 324 19 55 679 45 59
Future Volume (vph) 324 19 55 679 45 59
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1770 1863 1684
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 1849 994 1863 1684
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 352 21 60 738 49 64
RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 0 0 51 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 372 0 60 738 62 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.1 86.1 86.1 10.9
Effective Green, g (s) 86.1 86.1 86.1 10.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1516 815 1527 174
v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.40 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.07 0.48 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 2.1 1.8 2.8 43.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.2
Delay (s) 2.5 1.8 3.0 45.0
Level of Service A A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.5 2.9 45.0
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2200
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 17: Portola Ave & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 36 289 694 742 404 40
Future Volume (vph) 36 289 694 742 404 40
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.88 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1627 1504 3433 3539 3492
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1627 1504 3433 3539 3492
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 39 314 754 807 439 43
RTOR Reduction (vph) 119 80 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 96 754 807 470 0
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 28.6 17.3 37.1 15.8
Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 28.6 17.3 37.1 15.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.55 0.33 0.71 0.30
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 226 820 1133 2505 1052
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.06 c0.22 0.23 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.11 0.66 0.32 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 5.7 15.0 2.8 14.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3
Delay (s) 20.7 5.8 16.5 2.9 15.0
Level of Service C A B A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.3 9.5 15.0
Approach LOS B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 52.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2201
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 18: Stealth & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 284 76 44 680 182 59
Future Volume (vph) 284 76 44 680 182 59
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1810 1770 1863 1736
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1810 938 1863 1736
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 309 83 48 739 198 64
RTOR Reduction (vph) 10 0 0 0 16 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 382 0 48 739 246 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 55.6 55.6 55.6 16.4
Effective Green, g (s) 55.6 55.6 55.6 16.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1257 651 1294 355
v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.40 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.07 0.57 0.69
Uniform Delay, d1 4.7 3.9 6.1 29.4
Progression Factor 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.6 5.7
Delay (s) 4.4 3.9 6.7 35.2
Level of Service A A A D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 4.4 6.6 35.2
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2202
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 19: Isabel Ave & INP Road 3/INP Road 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 22 192 111 37 22 188 559 16 8 514 28 Future Volume (vph) 2 22 192 111 37 22 188 559 16 8 514 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1612 1770 1758 1770 3525 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1612 1770 1758 1770 3525 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 24 209 121 40 24 204 608 17 9 559 30
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 165 0 0 18 0 0 2 0 0 0 21
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 68 0 121 46 0 204 623 0 9 559 9 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 13.9 4.3 17.7 12.1 30.7 0.5 19.1 19.1 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 13.9 4.3 17.7 12.1 30.7 0.5 19.1 19.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.21 0.07 0.27 0.19 0.47 0.01 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 342 116 475 327 1654 13 1033 462
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.04 c0.07 c0.03 c0.12 0.18 0.01 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.20 1.04 0.09 0.62 0.37 0.69 0.54 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 32.2 21.1 30.5 17.8 24.5 11.1 32.3 19.4 16.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 0.2 95.5 0.0 3.6 0.1 96.2 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 37.6 21.4 126.1 17.9 28.2 11.3 128.6 20.0 16.4 Level of Service D C F B C B F C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.6 88.7 15.4 21.5
Approach LOS C F B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2203
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 20: Tranquility Circle/Cayetano Park & Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 323 90 41 676 0 207 0 37 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 0 323 90 41 676 0 207 0 37 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3423 1770 3539 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3423 1770 3539 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 351 98 45 735 0 225 0 40 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 424 0 45 735 0 225 13 0 0 0 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.1 1.4 24.5 8.4 15.9
Effective Green, g (s) 19.1 1.4 24.5 8.4 15.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.03 0.51 0.17 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1350 51 1791 307 520
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.03 c0.21 c0.13 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.88 0.41 0.73 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 23.4 7.4 18.9 11.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 83.1 0.1 8.7 0.0
Delay (s) 10.2 106.6 7.6 27.6 11.0
Level of Service B F A C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 10.2 13.3 25.1 0.0
Approach LOS B B C A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2204
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 21: Sandalwood Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 351 10 0 717 0 56
Future Volume (Veh/h) 351 10 0 717 0 56
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 382 11 0 779 0 61
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 889
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 393 777 197
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 393 777 197
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 1162 334 812
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 255 138 390 390 0 61
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 11 0 0 0 61
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 812
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 6
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.8
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2205
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 22: Road 3/Montage Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 398 60 77 881 31 137 6 15 27 84 105 Future Volume (vph) 10 398 60 77 881 31 137 6 15 27 84 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4986 1770 5059 1770 1668 1770 1707 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 4986 1770 5059 1770 1668 1770 1707 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 433 65 84 958 34 149 7 16 29 91 114
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 0 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 71 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 475 0 84 988 0 149 13 0 29 135 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 16.6 4.0 20.1 9.0 23.5 0.7 15.2 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 16.6 4.0 20.1 9.0 23.5 0.7 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.27 0.07 0.33 0.15 0.39 0.01 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 1361 116 1672 262 644 20 426
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.10 c0.05 c0.20 c0.08 0.01 0.02 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.34 0.72 0.59 0.56 0.02 1.45 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 17.7 27.8 16.9 24.0 11.5 30.0 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 130.5 0.1 19.9 0.5 2.8 0.0 363.8 0.4 Delay (s) 160.6 17.9 47.7 17.4 26.9 11.5 393.9 18.9
Level of Service F B D B C B F B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.9 19.8 24.8 65.4
Approach LOS C B C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2206
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 23: INP Road 1 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 506 17 0 1218 0 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 506 17 0 1218 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 550 18 0 1324 0 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 418 404
pX, platoon unblocked 0.98 0.85 0.98
vC, conflicting volume 568 1000 192
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 508 288 127
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 1037 581 887
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 220 220 128 441 441 441 5
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 18 0 0 0 5
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 887
Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.1
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2207
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 24: Shea Center Drive & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 458 43 115 978 30 136 6 20 26 83 104 Future Volume (vph) 10 458 43 115 978 30 136 6 20 26 83 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5020 1770 5062 1770 1651 1770 1707 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5020 1770 5062 1770 1651 1770 1707 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 498 47 125 1063 33 148 7 22 28 90 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 3 0 0 15 0 0 61 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 534 0 125 1093 0 148 14 0 28 142 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 19.2 7.3 26.0 8.0 20.6 1.6 14.2 Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 19.2 7.3 26.0 8.0 20.6 1.6 14.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.30 0.11 0.40 0.12 0.32 0.02 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 1489 199 2034 218 525 43 374
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.07 c0.22 c0.08 0.01 0.02 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.35 0.62 0.53 0.67 0.02 0.65 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 17.9 27.4 14.7 27.1 15.1 31.2 21.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 166.4 0.1 6.0 0.2 8.1 0.0 30.1 0.6 Delay (s) 198.5 18.0 33.4 15.0 35.2 15.1 61.4 22.1
Level of Service F B C B D B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.6 16.9 31.9 26.9
Approach LOS C B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2208
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 AM + Proj Mit Opt 2 25: INP Road 2 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 7:30 am 02/10/2020 2040 + Project AM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 431 9 0 989 0 3
Future Volume (Veh/h) 431 9 0 989 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 468 10 0 1075 0 3
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 397 579
pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 0.96 0.96
vC, conflicting volume 478 831 161
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 329 695 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1184 363 1045
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 187 187 104 358 358 358 3
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 10 0 0 0 3
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1045
Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 8.5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2209
June 20, 2024 Page 18
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – No Net Loss Rezoning – Level of Service Assessment Appendices Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix H – 2040 Option 2 Mitigated LOS
Calculations – PM peak

EXHIBIT D
2210
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 1: Isabel Ave & Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 192 389 265 191 276 467 998 262 312 1330 18 Future Volume (vph) 10 192 389 265 191 276 467 998 262 312 1330 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 209 423 288 208 300 508 1085 285 339 1446 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 56 0 0 50 0 0 170 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 209 367 288 208 250 508 1085 115 339 1446 8 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 23.9 50.9 14.4 36.7 63.5 27.0 55.7 55.7 26.8 55.5 55.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 23.3 49.7 13.8 36.1 62.3 28.0 56.7 56.7 27.8 56.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.17 0.36 0.10 0.26 0.45 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 310 561 174 480 704 354 2059 641 681 2052 627 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.11 0.12 c0.16 0.11 0.07 c0.29 0.21 0.10 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.67 0.65 1.65 0.43 0.35 1.43 0.52 0.18 0.49 0.70 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 69.4 54.7 37.9 63.1 43.4 25.6 56.0 31.5 26.7 49.8 34.7 25.6 Progression Factor 1.12 0.78 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 195.4 4.9 2.3 318.9 0.6 0.3 211.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 2.0 0.0 Delay (s) 273.3 47.6 27.2 382.0 44.0 25.9 267.3 32.4 27.3 50.4 36.8 25.6 Level of Service F D C F D C F C C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 38.0 159.5 95.2 39.2
Approach LOS D F F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 78.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2211
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 2: Murrieta Blvd/Driveway & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 1087 248 239 941 2 208 2 494 7 1 3 Future Volume (vph) 2 1087 248 239 941 2 208 2 494 7 1 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3440 3433 3538 1681 1687 1583 1742 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3440 3433 3538 1681 1687 1583 1742 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 1182 270 260 1023 2 226 2 537 8 1 3
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 1439 0 260 1025 0 118 110 233 0 9 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Perm Split NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 52.7 11.7 63.7 18.0 18.0 18.0 0.7 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 51.8 11.7 62.8 17.4 17.4 17.4 0.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.51 0.12 0.62 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 1771 399 2208 290 291 273 12
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.42 c0.08 0.29 0.07 0.07 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm c0.15
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.81 0.65 0.46 0.40 0.37 0.85 0.75
Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 20.3 42.5 9.9 37.0 36.8 40.3 49.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.3 21.0 118.8 Delay (s) 52.0 23.1 45.4 10.0 37.3 37.1 61.4 168.7
Level of Service D C D B D D E F
Approach Delay (s/veh) 23.1 17.2 54.2 168.7
Approach LOS C B D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.6 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2212
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 3: Livermore Ave & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 836 678 151 45 410 69 285 700 191 221 1047 478 Future Volume (vph) 836 678 151 45 410 69 285 700 191 221 1047 478 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3425 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3425 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 909 737 164 49 446 75 310 761 208 240 1138 520 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 114 0 0 60 0 20 0 0 0 61
Lane Group Flow (vph) 909 737 50 49 446 15 310 949 0 240 1138 459 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3
Permitted Phases 8 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.1 33.2 33.2 6.1 22.2 22.2 17.1 36.1 17.1 36.1 53.2 Effective Green, g (s) 17.1 34.5 33.2 6.1 23.5 22.2 17.1 35.2 17.1 35.2 51.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.32 0.31 0.06 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.32 0.16 0.32 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 786 1125 484 99 766 323 278 1111 278 1148 749 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.21 0.03 c0.13 c0.18 0.28 0.14 c0.32 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.20
v/c Ratio 1.15 0.65 0.10 0.49 0.58 0.04 1.11 0.85 0.86 0.99 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 31.8 26.9 49.7 38.0 34.6 45.7 34.2 44.5 36.4 21.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 84.5 1.3 0.0 3.8 1.1 0.0 88.5 6.5 23.0 24.3 1.4 Delay (s) 130.2 33.2 27.0 53.5 39.2 34.7 134.2 40.8 67.6 60.8 22.6 Level of Service F C C D D C F D E E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 81.3 39.8 63.4 51.2
Approach LOS F D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 62.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 108.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2213
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 4: Isabel Ave & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 854 0 638 0 799 88 0 817 626 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 854 0 638 0 799 88 0 817 626
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 928 0 693 0 868 96 0 888 680
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 401
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 928 0 621 0 868 96 0 888 279 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Free NA Prot
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6 6
Permitted Phases Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 32.5 32.5 29.5 70.0 29.5 29.5
Effective Green, g (s) 32.5 32.5 28.7 70.0 28.7 28.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.41 1.00 0.41 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1593 734 2084 1583 2084 649
v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 c0.39 0.17 0.17 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.84 0.41 0.06 0.42 0.42
Uniform Delay, d1 13.7 16.5 14.6 0.0 14.7 14.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 8.5 0.6 0.0 0.6 2.0
Delay (s) 14.1 25.1 15.3 0.0 15.4 16.8
Level of Service B C B A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 18.8 13.7 16.0
Approach LOS A B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2214
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 5: Isabel Ave & I-580 EB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 408 0 361 0 0 0 0 850 728 0 1133 666 Future Volume (vph) 408 0 361 0 0 0 0 850 728 0 1133 666 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 443 0 392 0 0 0 0 924 791 0 1232 724
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 443 0 310 0 0 0 0 924 791 0 1232 724 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Free NA Free
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 34.6 55.0 34.6 55.0
Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 11.4 35.6 55.0 35.6 55.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.65 1.00 0.65 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 711 577 3291 1583 3291 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.18 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.50 0.46
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.53 0.28 0.49 0.37 0.45
Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 19.4 4.1 0.0 4.5 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.9
Delay (s) 21.0 19.9 4.3 1.1 4.8 0.9
Level of Service C B A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.5 0.0 2.8 3.4
Approach LOS C A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2215
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 6: Airway Blvd & I-580 WB Ramps 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 159 1 197 0 823 378 0 737 732 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 159 1 197 0 823 378 0 737 732 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1686 2787 3539 1583 4705
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1681 1686 2787 3539 1583 4705
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 173 1 214 0 895 411 0 801 796
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 182 0 0 108 0 168 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 92 82 32 0 895 303 0 1429 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.4 10.4 10.4 50.3 50.3 50.3
Effective Green, g (s) 10.4 10.4 10.4 51.6 51.6 51.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.74 0.74
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 249 250 414 2608 1166 3468
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.05 0.25 c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.32 0.07 0.34 0.25 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 26.6 25.6 3.2 2.9 3.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 2.28 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3
Delay (s) 27.1 26.9 25.6 2.7 7.2 3.8
Level of Service C C C A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 26.3 4.1 3.8
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2216
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 7: Airway Blvd & I-580 EB Ramps/Kitty Hawk Rd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 596 239 366 97 112 221 120 503 194 150 403 333 Future Volume (vph) 596 239 366 97 112 221 120 503 194 150 403 333 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 2.7 4.0 2.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3391 1770 3299 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3391 1770 3299 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 648 260 398 105 122 240 130 547 211 163 438 362 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 301 0 0 71 0 25 0 0 109 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 648 260 97 105 122 169 130 733 0 163 691 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 7 8 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 7 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 33.2 33.2 33.2 15.1 15.1 31.7 20.1 59.1 16.6 55.6 Effective Green, g (s) 33.2 33.2 33.2 14.7 14.7 30.9 19.6 60.4 16.6 56.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 814 441 375 185 195 399 247 1462 209 1340 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.14 0.06 c0.07 0.05 0.07 c0.22 c0.09 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.58 0.25 0.56 0.62 0.42 0.52 0.50 0.77 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 50.2 47.3 43.4 59.6 60.0 46.8 55.8 28.8 59.9 31.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.81 1.04 0.94 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 1.3 0.1 2.3 4.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 14.4 1.3 Delay (s) 55.2 48.6 43.5 61.9 64.4 47.1 44.9 24.1 76.8 30.8 Level of Service E D D E E D D C E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 50.3 55.0 27.2 38.6
Approach LOS D E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 42.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2217
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 8: Isabel Ave & Jack London Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 225 756 257 224 240 231 102 1327 693 280 1570 91 Future Volume (vph) 225 756 257 224 240 231 102 1327 693 280 1570 91 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 245 822 279 243 261 251 111 1442 753 304 1707 99 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 112 0 0 36 0 0 194 0 0 58
Lane Group Flow (vph) 245 822 167 243 261 215 111 1442 559 304 1707 41 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.6 34.1 34.1 17.7 37.2 52.9 8.7 49.8 49.8 15.7 56.8 56.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.6 34.1 34.1 17.7 37.2 52.9 8.7 49.8 49.8 15.7 56.8 56.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.27 0.38 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 361 871 389 226 950 665 215 1828 569 389 2085 649 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.23 c0.14 0.07 c0.04 0.03 0.28 c0.09 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.10 c0.35 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.94 0.42 1.07 0.27 0.32 0.51 0.78 0.98 0.78 0.81 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 59.6 51.2 43.9 60.4 39.9 30.1 62.8 39.6 43.9 59.7 36.2 24.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 18.2 0.7 81.2 0.1 0.2 2.0 2.3 33.0 9.8 2.6 0.0 Delay (s) 64.6 69.4 44.7 141.6 40.1 30.4 64.9 41.9 76.9 69.5 38.9 24.7 Level of Service E E D F D C E D E E D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 63.4 69.6 54.5 42.6
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 54.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 138.5 Sum of lost time (s) 21.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2218
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 9: Airway Blvd/Driveway & N Canyons Pkwy 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 884 322 1052 35 0 99 0 855 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 884 322 1052 35 0 99 0 855 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3433 1863 1770 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 961 350 1143 38 0 108 0 929 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 325 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 961 139 1143 38 0 0 108 604 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pm+ov
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8 1 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 34.0 54.5 92.5 19.5 74.0
Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 56.5 94.5 19.3 78.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.47 0.79 0.16 0.65
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1061 474 1616 1467 284 1858
v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 c0.33 0.02 c0.06 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.90 0.29 0.70 0.02 0.38 0.32
Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 32.2 25.1 2.7 45.0 9.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 12.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 52.9 33.7 26.6 2.7 45.8 9.4
Level of Service D C C A D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 47.8 25.8 13.2 0.0
Approach LOS D C B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 30.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2219
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 10: Collier Canyon Rd & N Canyons Pkwy/Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 117 955 107 64 409 44 3 7 326 39 4 85 Future Volume (vph) 117 955 107 64 409 44 3 7 326 39 4 85 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 2.7 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1590 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 1590 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 1038 116 70 445 48 3 8 354 42 4 92
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 66 0 0 29 0 221 0 0 0 67
Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 1038 50 70 445 19 3 141 0 42 4 25 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.6 28.4 28.4 4.2 26.0 26.0 0.9 16.5 3.3 18.9 18.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.6 29.7 29.7 4.2 27.3 27.3 0.9 17.5 3.3 18.3 18.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 331 1536 687 108 1412 631 23 406 85 498 423 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.29 c0.04 0.13 0.00 c0.09 c0.02 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.67 0.07 0.64 0.31 0.03 0.13 0.34 0.49 0.00 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 28.9 15.4 11.3 31.3 14.1 12.4 33.3 20.7 31.7 18.3 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.1 0.0 12.6 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 29.7 16.6 11.3 44.0 14.2 12.5 35.9 21.3 36.1 18.3 18.6 Level of Service C B B D B B D C D B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.4 17.8 21.4 24.0
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.4 Sum of lost time (s) 15.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2220
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 11: Isabel Ave/Campus Hill Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 807 402 431 483 10 290 224 91 4 185 6 Future Volume (vph) 6 807 402 431 483 10 290 224 91 4 185 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.8 5.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3528 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 2787 4990 3528 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 877 437 468 525 11 315 243 99 4 201 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 239 0 1 0 0 0 71 0 0 6
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 877 198 468 535 0 315 243 28 4 201 1 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.5 34.0 34.0 13.2 45.7 11.1 25.1 25.1 1.5 15.9 15.9 Effective Green, g (s) 1.5 35.3 35.3 13.2 47.0 11.1 26.4 26.4 1.5 15.0 15.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.14 0.51 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 28 1352 1064 712 1794 412 1011 452 28 574 256 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.25 c0.09 0.15 c0.09 0.07 0.00 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.64 0.18 0.65 0.29 0.76 0.24 0.06 0.14 0.35 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 44.8 23.4 18.9 37.4 13.1 39.3 25.3 24.0 44.8 34.3 32.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 1.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 46.6 24.5 19.0 39.1 13.2 46.8 25.4 24.0 45.6 34.7 32.4 Level of Service D C B D B D C C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.8 25.3 35.4 34.8
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2221
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 12: Rutan Dr/BART W. Access & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 689 50 39 476 27 44 1 2 142 13 225 Future Volume (vph) 26 689 50 39 476 27 44 1 2 142 13 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1844 1770 1848 1770 1676 1770 1598 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.75 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1844 1770 1848 582 1676 1408 1598 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 749 54 42 517 29 48 1 2 154 14 245
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 200 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 800 0 42 544 0 48 1 0 154 59 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 49.4 4.0 49.2 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 Effective Green, g (s) 4.2 49.4 4.0 49.2 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.62 0.05 0.62 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 92 1138 88 1136 106 305 256 291
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.43 0.02 c0.29 0.00 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.11
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.70 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.00 0.60 0.20
Uniform Delay, d1 36.4 10.3 36.9 8.4 29.1 26.7 30.0 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 3.6 3.5 1.2 3.0 0.0 3.9 0.3
Delay (s) 38.3 13.9 41.1 8.4 32.1 26.7 33.9 28.0
Level of Service D B D A C C C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 14.8 10.7 31.8 30.2
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 17.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2222
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 13: E. Airway Blvd & BART E. Access 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 13 511 309 25 265 54 164 12 14 284 124 113 Future Volume (vph) 13 511 309 25 265 54 164 12 14 284 124 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1757 1770 1815 1770 1713 1770 1730 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.73 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1757 1770 1815 792 1713 1377 1730 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 555 336 27 288 59 178 13 15 309 135 123 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 9 0 0 11 0 0 42 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 867 0 27 338 0 178 17 0 309 216 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.4 45.9 1.6 44.1 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 Effective Green, g (s) 3.4 45.9 1.6 44.1 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.57 0.02 0.55 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 1008 35 1000 202 438 352 443
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.49 c0.02 0.19 0.01 0.12
v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.22
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.85 0.77 0.33 0.88 0.03 0.87 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 36.9 14.3 39.0 9.9 28.5 22.3 28.5 25.2 Progression Factor 1.18 0.88 1.09 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 7.5 65.9 0.8 33.0 0.0 21.0 0.8 Delay (s) 44.6 20.3 108.5 11.4 61.5 22.3 49.5 26.1
Level of Service D C F B E C D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.7 18.4 56.2 38.9
Approach LOS C B E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2223
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 14: Isabel Ave & Gateway Blvd./N. BART Parking 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 87 45 448 128 22 91 482 620 335 167 1007 37 Future Volume (vph) 87 45 448 128 22 91 482 620 335 167 1007 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1552 1504 1770 1638 3433 3353 1770 3521 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1552 1504 1770 1638 3433 3353 1770 3521 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 49 487 139 24 99 524 674 364 182 1095 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 193 228 0 83 0 0 77 0 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 80 35 139 40 0 524 961 0 182 1132 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.2 10.8 10.8 8.9 13.5 15.5 34.6 11.9 31.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.2 10.8 10.8 8.9 13.5 15.5 34.6 11.9 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.19 0.42 0.14 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 203 197 191 269 647 1411 256 1327 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.05 c0.08 c0.02 c0.15 c0.29 0.10 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.39 0.17 0.72 0.14 0.80 0.68 0.71 0.85
Uniform Delay, d1 37.1 32.7 31.7 35.4 29.4 31.9 19.3 33.5 23.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.6 1.2 0.4 12.9 0.2 7.4 1.3 8.9 5.5 Delay (s) 53.7 33.9 32.1 48.4 29.6 39.3 20.6 42.4 29.0
Level of Service D C C D C D C D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 36.1 39.6 26.9 30.8
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 30.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2224
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 15: Main Street & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1221 89 0 642 0 61
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1221 89 0 642 0 61
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1327 97 0 698 0 66
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 366 483
pX, platoon unblocked 0.79 0.80 0.79
vC, conflicting volume 1424 1608 491
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 596 651 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 770 322 854
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 531 531 362 233 233 233 66
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 97 0 0 0 66
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 854
Volume to Capacity 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.6
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2225
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 16: Sutter St & E. Airway Blvd. 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 562 61 126 282 32 61
Future Volume (vph) 562 61 126 282 32 61
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.91
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot) 1838 1770 1863 1669
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (perm) 1838 681 1863 1669
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 611 66 137 307 35 66
RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 58 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 674 0 137 307 43 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 58.4 58.4 58.4 8.6
Effective Green, g (s) 58.4 58.4 58.4 8.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.11
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1431 530 1450 191
v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 0.16 c0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.25 0.21 0.22
Uniform Delay, d1 2.9 2.3 2.1 30.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.5
Delay (s) 4.0 2.5 2.2 30.7
Level of Service A A A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 4.0 2.3 30.7
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 5.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2226
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 17: Portola Ave & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 143 818 333 849 804 75
Future Volume (vph) 143 818 333 849 804 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.89 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1641 1504 3433 3539 3494
Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1641 1504 3433 3539 3494
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 155 889 362 923 874 82
RTOR Reduction (vph) 92 38 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 436 478 362 923 947 0
Turn Type Prot pt+ov Prot NA NA
Protected Phases 4 4 5 5 2 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.2 39.8 11.6 44.4 28.8
Effective Green, g (s) 24.2 39.8 11.6 44.4 28.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.52 0.15 0.58 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 518 781 519 2051 1313
v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 c0.32 0.11 0.26 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.61 0.69 0.45 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 12.9 30.8 9.1 20.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 11.7 1.4 4.0 0.1 1.9
Delay (s) 36.1 14.3 34.9 9.3 22.4
Level of Service D B C A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.3 16.5 22.4
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2227
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 18: Stealth & E. Airway Blvd 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 562 247 101 213 131 61
Future Volume (vph) 562 247 101 213 131 61
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 1786 1770 1863 1724
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 1786 442 1863 1724
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 611 268 110 232 142 66
RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 0 0 0 24 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 864 0 110 232 184 0
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 57.8 57.8 57.8 14.2
Effective Green, g (s) 57.8 57.8 57.8 14.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.18
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1290 319 1346 306
v/s Ratio Prot c0.48 0.12 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.25
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.34 0.17 0.60
Uniform Delay, d1 5.9 4.1 3.5 30.2
Progression Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.6 0.0 3.3
Delay (s) 7.0 4.7 3.5 33.6
Level of Service A A A C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 7.0 3.9 33.6
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2228
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 19: Isabel Ave & INP Road 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 44 87 225 42 51 30 242 445 111 55 944 19 Future Volume (vph) 44 87 225 42 51 30 242 445 111 55 944 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1661 1770 1758 1770 3433 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1661 1770 1758 1770 3433 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 95 245 46 55 33 263 484 121 60 1026 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 109 0 0 25 0 0 19 0 0 0 13
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 231 0 46 63 0 263 586 0 60 1026 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 17.1 3.0 17.1 16.2 43.2 3.7 30.7 30.7 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 17.1 3.0 17.1 16.2 43.2 3.7 30.7 30.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.21 0.04 0.21 0.20 0.52 0.04 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 63 342 63 362 345 1786 78 1309 585
v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.14 0.03 0.04 c0.15 0.17 0.03 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.67 0.73 0.17 0.76 0.32 0.76 0.78 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 39.6 30.3 39.5 27.1 31.5 11.5 39.2 23.2 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 41.2 5.2 34.9 0.2 9.5 0.1 35.7 3.1 0.0 Delay (s) 80.8 35.6 74.5 27.3 41.1 11.6 74.9 26.3 16.5
Level of Service F D E C D B E C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.2 43.5 20.5 28.8
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2229
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 20: Tranquility Circle/Cayetano Park & Portola Ave 06/17/2024 Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 548 326 149 661 13 234 0 62 13 0 29 Future Volume (vph) 29 548 326 149 661 13 234 0 62 13 0 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3341 1770 3529 1770 1583 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3341 1770 3529 1770 1583 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 596 354 162 718 14 254 0 67 14 0 32
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 71 0 0 1 0 0 46 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 879 0 162 731 0 254 21 0 14 3 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 29.6 11.8 38.2 18.2 26.2 0.5 8.5 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 29.6 11.8 38.2 18.2 26.2 0.5 8.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.35 0.14 0.45 0.22 0.31 0.01 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 67 1175 248 1602 383 493 10 159
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.26 c0.09 0.21 c0.14 c0.01 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.74 0.65 0.45 0.66 0.04 1.40 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 39.6 23.9 34.2 15.7 30.1 20.1 41.8 34.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 2.6 6.0 0.2 4.2 0.0 438.5 0.0 Delay (s) 44.9 26.6 40.2 16.0 34.4 20.2 480.3 34.1
Level of Service D C D B C C F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 27.2 20.4 31.4 169.9
Approach LOS C C C F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 28.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 84.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2230
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 21: Sandalwood Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 613 10 0 823 0 55
Future Volume (Veh/h) 613 10 0 823 0 55
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 666 11 0 895 0 60
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 889
pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.95 0.95
vC, conflicting volume 677 1119 339
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 555 1020 198
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 961 221 769
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 444 233 448 448 0 60
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 11 0 0 0 60
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 769
Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 6
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 10.1
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2231
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 22: Road 3/Montage Dr & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 125 1031 126 89 491 143 119 21 122 36 67 32 Future Volume (vph) 125 1031 126 89 491 143 119 21 122 36 67 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5002 1770 4914 1770 1625 1770 1772 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5002 1770 4914 1770 1625 1770 1772 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 136 1121 137 97 534 155 129 23 133 39 73 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 60 0 0 100 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 1242 0 97 629 0 129 56 0 39 79 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 20.6 5.8 18.8 5.6 14.7 1.7 10.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 20.6 5.8 18.8 5.6 14.7 1.7 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.35 0.10 0.32 0.10 0.25 0.03 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1752 174 1571 168 406 51 325
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.25 0.05 0.13 c0.07 c0.03 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.70 0.55 0.40 0.76 0.13 0.76 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 16.5 25.2 15.6 25.9 17.1 28.3 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 1.3 3.8 0.1 18.7 0.1 48.9 0.3 Delay (s) 28.3 17.8 29.1 15.7 44.7 17.2 77.2 20.9
Level of Service C B C B D B E C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.8 17.4 29.7 35.8
Approach LOS B B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2232
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 23: INP Road 1 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1284 36 0 517 0 41
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1284 36 0 517 0 41
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1396 39 0 562 0 45
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 418 404
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84
vC, conflicting volume 1435 1603 485
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 833 1034 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 95
cM capacity (veh/h) 665 191 906
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 558 558 318 187 187 187 45
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 39 0 0 0 45
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 906
Volume to Capacity 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2233
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 24: Shea Center Drive & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 1111 90 133 367 142 119 20 163 36 66 31 Future Volume (vph) 124 1111 90 133 367 142 119 20 163 36 66 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5028 1770 4873 1770 1614 1770 1773 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5028 1770 4873 1770 1614 1770 1773 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 135 1208 98 145 399 154 129 22 177 39 72 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 74 0 0 135 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 135 1296 0 145 479 0 129 64 0 39 78 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 20.6 7.3 21.2 4.7 14.2 1.4 10.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 20.6 7.3 21.2 4.7 14.2 1.4 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.35 0.12 0.36 0.08 0.24 0.02 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 199 1740 217 1736 139 385 41 324
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.26 c0.08 0.10 c0.07 c0.04 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.74 0.66 0.27 0.92 0.16 0.95 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 17.1 24.9 13.6 27.2 17.9 29.0 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.8 1.7 7.5 0.0 54.3 0.2 120.9 0.3 Delay (s) 34.2 18.9 32.5 13.7 81.5 18.1 149.9 21.1
Level of Service C B C B F B F C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.3 17.6 43.1 55.8
Approach LOS C B D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
2234
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2040 PM+ Proj Mit Opt 2 25: INP Road 2 & Portola Ave 06/17/2024
Scenario 1 Isabel Neighborhood Plan EIR with Valley Link 02/10/2020 2040 + Project PM Synchro 12 Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1171 18 0 723 0 20
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1171 18 0 723 0 20
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 1273 20 0 786 0 22
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 397 579
pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 0.81 0.81
vC, conflicting volume 1293 1545 434
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 533 844 0
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 97
cM capacity (veh/h) 833 244 877
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1
Volume Total 509 509 275 262 262 262 22
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 20 0 0 0 22
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 877
Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 9.2
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

EXHIBIT D
2235
Appendix E-4
No Net Loss Project – VMT Assessment

EXHIBIT D
2236
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
June 10, 2024 Project# 29502
To: Aileen Mahoney,
Rincon Environmental Engineers
449 25th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
From: Damian Stefanakis, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC:

RE: Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Plan – Rezoning Addendum – VMT Assessment

INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum prepared by Kittelson & Assoc., Inc, summarizes the VMT assessment for the rezoning of the Isabel Neighborhood plan (INP). Following the INP DEIR/SEIR and the subsequent Isabel Village application by Harridge which has proposed to reduce the number of residential units in Parcels 3b and 3c, we understand the City of Livermore is concerned about a reduction in residential units to meet their overall RINA’s housing needs. As a result, they have proposed two potential options to replace some of the planned office development with additional residential units in the INP. These options are being evaluated as an addendum to the SEIR.

Kittelson has modeled the two options using the citywide Isabel Neighborhood plan model and extracted VMT and intersection forecasts so that the city can assess the effects of the addendum options on the D/SEIR. This memorandum focuses on the VMT, while a subsequent memo will address the intersection level of service impact assessment.

This memorandum provides a qualitative review of VMT primarily for information purposes, and a statement of whether the change in project would substantially affect the VMT findings compared to the DEIR/SEIR.

Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed into law in 2013, required CEQA lead agencies to shift from using traditional LOS standards and automobile delay to determine significant traffic impacts. Under SB 743, the State Office of Planning and Research is required to update CEQA guidelines and criteria to promote greenhouse gas emissions reductions, multimodal transportation networks and diverse land uses. The Office of Planning and Research proposes using VMT as the metric for evaluating the significant traffic impacts, where projects that decrease VMT compared to existing conditions may be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. SB 743 provides that, once the State adopts updated CEQA Guidelines for alternatives to LOS-based significance determinations, automobile delay as described by LOS shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment. However, the State guidelines were still under 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742

EXHIBIT D
2237
June 10, 2024 Page 2
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Plan – Rezoning Addendum – VMT Assessment Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
development at the time of the DEIR. Accordingly, the City of Livermore determined to utilize the LOS-based methodology for significance determination in the DEIR, and VMT was reported for information purposes only. Given the addendum tiers off the DEIR, this assessment reports the VMT and net change for informational purposes.

Summary of Land Use Changes
We understand that the city is considering two options for rezoning, including sites within INSP areas 3a and/or 1d. The intent of the proposed rezoning is to ensure no net loss of housing opportunity sites, in accordance with the City’s adopted Housing Element, for the INSP area. Proposed and constructed developments in the INSP area have not met the anticipated unit counts identified in the INSP and/or Housing Element; therefore, the city desires to rezone certain parcels within the INSP to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for the development of housing within the INSP area. The current shortfall of residential units is 344 units, with the trend of housing unit shortfalls anticipated to continue as the INSP area is built out.

The two options being considered for rezoning by the city include:

EXHIBIT D
2238
June 10, 2024 Page 3
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Plan – Rezoning Addendum – VMT Assessment Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1: INSP Addendum Rezoning Parcels
Source: Google Maps, City of Livermore, 2024
Summary of VMT Assessment
Previously, the D/SEIR summarized VMT results for informational purposes. At that time, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) had not yet finalized their VMT recommendations per SB 743, so the DEIR team opted to present VMT results as informational, while LOS remained as the primary impact metric for transportation.

The metrics used were total VMT and VMT per Service population (residential population + jobs). The method used for computing the VMT for the Addendum is slightly different to the methods used in 2018, so the results do vary slightly. For consistency, the D/SEIR VMT was restated for consistent comparison to the addendum options. Table 1 summarizes the VMT results for the D/SEIR and the Addendum options.

Table 1 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Year Scenario Daily Vehicle
Trips
Daily
VMT
Service
Population
VMT/ Service
Population
2013 No Project 57,730 599,393 14,671 40.9
2040 DEIR Project 112,183 1,168,901 36,273 32.2
2040 Addendum Option 1 104,771 1,123,732 34,379 32.7
2040 Addendum Option 2 104,657 1,157,280 35,328 32.8
Note: Total VMT and VMT/Service Population may be different to those reported in DEIR, due to updated methodology, but the net comparison with the DEIR remains consistent.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2024

EXHIBIT D
2239
June 10, 2024 Page 4
Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Plan – Rezoning Addendum – VMT Assessment Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

As mentioned in the footnote, the Total VMT and VMT/Service Population may be different to those reported in the DEIR due to use of an updated methodology, but the net comparison with the DEIR remains consistent.

The following is observed when comparing the VMT results from the 2040 D/SEIR with the 2040 Addendum options:
• The 2013 results are provided as representing the original baseline. • The DEIR was evaluated under 2040 cumulative conditions. • The total VMT for the 2040 Addendum options decreases compared to the DEIR (from 1,168,901 to 1,123,732 and 1,157,280). This is a result of reductions in office related VMT offset by increases in residential VMT. Overall, the net change in total VMT shows a slight reduction, but the result is not substantially significant.
• The VMT/Service population increases very slightly from 32.2 for the DEIR to 32.7 and 32.8 with the two Addendum options. Since the VMT/service population combines the VMT for the two land use types, the change in the ratio is not substantially significant compared to the DEIR.

Overall VMT findings suggest the Addendum options would not substantially increase VMT impacts compared to the INSP DEIR.

Conclusion
VMT is provided for informational purposes. Based on this assessment, the increase of residential units and reduction of office commercial in three parcels for the addendum is not expected to have a substantial effect on VMT compared to the DEIR findings.

EXHIBIT D
2240
Appendix F
Water Supply Assessment Update

EXHIBIT D
2241
Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Project
Water Supply Assessment Update
prepared by
City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Contact: Jennifer Ackerman, Assistant Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
June 2024

EXHIBIT D
2242
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Overview................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Water Demands.................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Water Supply Providers ...................................................................................................... 6 2 Senate Bill 610 ..............................................................................................................................11 3 Supply Availability Projections......................................................................................................13

3.1 Normal Water Year...........................................................................................................13

3.2 Single Dry Water Year.......................................................................................................14

3.3 Multiple Dry Water Years..................................................................................................17 4 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................23 5 References....................................................................................................................................24 Tables
Table 1 Net Growth Projections with Proposed Project (Isabel Crossing Project and No Net Loss Project)................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 Approved Project Water Demands (AFY)............................................................................. 5 Table 3 Proposed Project Water Demands....................................................................................... 6 Table 4 Water Supply Development Projects and Programs............................................................ 9 Table 5 LMW Normal Water Year Conditions (AF)..........................................................................13 Table 6 Zone 7 Normal Water Year Conditions (AF) .......................................................................14 Table 7 LMW Single Dry-Year Conditions (AF) ................................................................................15 Table 8 Zone 7 Single Dry-Year Conditions (AF)..............................................................................16 Table 9 LMW Multiple Dry-Year Conditions (AF) ............................................................................17 Table 10 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 1 (AF)............................................................18 Table 11 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 2 (AF)............................................................19 Table 12 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 3 (AF)............................................................20 Table 13 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 4 (AF)............................................................21 Table 14 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 5 (AF)............................................................22 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Project Location.................................................................................................................... 3

EXHIBIT D
2243
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT D
2244
1 Introduction
This report is an update to the 2017 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP) (City of Livermore 2017). The 2017 WSA was approved with certification of the project’s INSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 2018 (City of Livermore 2018) for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Supplemental EIR for the project was later certified in 2020 (City of Livermore 2020). An Addendum to the Supplemental EIR is currently being prepared for the Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Project, which consists of changes to the development program for a portion of the INSP area; these changes are henceforth referred to as the “proposed project.” Section 1.1, Project Overview, provides a comparison between the approved project (i.e., the adopted INSP) and the proposed project.

The purpose of this WSA Update is to assess water demands of the changes to the INSP contemplated in the proposed project in comparison to the approved project and incorporate 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) data into the analysis of water supply availability and reliability. Water demands of the approved project were assessed in the 2017 WSA for the INSP and accounted for in the 2020 UWMPs for Livermore Municipal Water (LMW) and Zone 7 Water Agency (“Zone 7”); see Section 1.4, Water Supply Providers, for information on these water provides. Water supply availability and reliability projections included in the 2020 UWMPs determined that with implementation of planned water supply projects, sufficient water would be available to meet anticipated needs under normal year, single dry-year, and multiple dry-year conditions and, should shortfall(s) occur prior to full implementation of planned water supply projects, Water Shortage Contingency Plans (WSCPs) for LMW and Zone 7 would be implemented to ensure sufficient supply to meet anticipated demands; see Section 3, Supply Availability Projections, for further discussion.

This WSA Update is being prepared because the proposed project would increase water demands of the approved project beyond those accounted for in the 2017 WSA for the INSP and the 2020 UWMPs for LMW and Zone 7. The proposed project also meets one of the thresholds defined by SB 610 as requiring a WSA, which is the introduction of 500 or more new residential units. The proposed project would increase the number of residential units previously approved for the INSP area by 1,431 units; see Section 1.2, Project Overview, for further discussion. This WSA Update builds off the 2017 WSA by providing analysis of the proposed changes to the approved project, and by using the same approach as the approved 2017 WSA; see Section 2, Senate Bill 610.

1.1 Project Location
The proposed project site includes three distinct areas. Figure 1 and Figure 2 on the following pages portray the proposed project regional location and the proposed project site. The proposed project includes the Isabel Crossing Project and the No New Loss Project.  The Isabel Crossing Parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 903-10-36-3, 905-10-23, and 905- 10-24) encompass approximately 45 acres located at the southwest corner of Isabel Avenue and Portola Avenue in the INSP area of the City of Livermore in Alameda County. The Isabel Crossing Parcels are located within the 3b and 3c Subareas of the previously approved INSP. Subareas 3b and 3c are core areas of the INSP with a general objective of creating a vibrant residential neighborhood with retail uses that generate transit ridership.

EXHIBIT D
2245
Figure 1 Regional Location

EXHIBIT D
2246
Figure 2 Project Location

EXHIBIT D
2247
 The No Net Loss Parcels make up the remaining two areas of the proposed project site, including the BART Parcel and the Comcast Parcels. The BART Parcel (6.53 acres, APN 903-10-36- 3) is located to the east of the intersection of I-580 and Isabel Avenue, and the Comcast Parcels (26.832 total acres, APNs 905-10-23 and 905-10-24) are located northwest of North Canyons Parkway at 3055 Triad Place in Livermore. The BART Parcel is located within Subarea 3a of the INSP. Subarea 3a land uses include Office Core and Core Residential (60-100 du/ac). The Comcast Parcels are located within Subarea 1d of the INSP. Subarea 1d is designated for Business Park land uses.

The Isabel Crossing Parcels and the BART Parcel are currently undeveloped with sparse vegetation.

The Comcast Parcels are currently developed with existing office buildings and parking.

1.2 Project Overview
The proposed project consists of proposed development on the Isabel Crossing Parcels as well as land use designation changes for the BART Parcel and Comcast Parcels within the INSP area to ensure no net loss of housing opportunity sites within the INSP area, in accordance with the City’s updated Housing Element which was adopted on March 13, 2023, and covers the period from 2023 to 2031. The current shortfall of residential units is 344 units, with the trend of housing unit shortfalls anticipated to continue as the INSP area is built out. The proposed project would change the land use designations of the following parcels from the approved project, to provide for additional residential uses needed to address the current housing shortfall, based upon the City’s updated Housing Element: Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 905-10-23, Comcast Parcel West (INSP Subarea 1d); APN 905-10-24, Comcast Parcel East (INSP Subarea 1d); APN 903-10-36-3, BART Parcel West (INSP Subarea 3a).

The Isabel Crossing Project and No Net Loss Parcels combined would result in a net Increase of 1,431 residential units and a net decrease of 1,531,486 square feet of office space, compared to what was analyzed in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR for the INSP. Table 1, below, provides a comparison between the characteristics of the proposed project (including the Isabel Crossing Project and No Net Loss Project) and the approved project (original INSP design), to demonstrate how land uses would change under the proposed project.

Table 1 Net Growth Projections with Proposed Project (Isabel Crossing Project and No Net Loss Project)
Project Characteristic Proposed Project Approved Project Change (Proposed Compared
to Approved Project)
Isabel Crossing Project
Office/Commercial 74,362 square feet 206,8251 square feet -132,463 square feet Residential Units 1,299 units 1,338 units2 -39 units
Other Existing and Planned Development in the INSP + Isabel Crossing Project Residential Units 2,299 units 2,642 units -344 units
No Net Loss Parcels
Office/Commercial
(Comcast Parcels)
0 584,482 square feet -584,482 square feet
Residential Units
(BART Parcel)
0 946,994 square feet -946,994 square feet

EXHIBIT D
2248
Project Characteristic Proposed Project Approved Project Change (Proposed Compared
to Approved Project)
Residential Units
(Comcast Parcels)
862 units 0 units +862 units
Residential Units
(BART Parcel)
913 units 244 units +669 units
Overall Growth Projections (Isabel Crossing Project + No Net Loss Parcels) Office/Commercial -- -- -1,531,486 square feet
Residential Units -- -- 1,431 units
1 The office buildout for the project site was estimated using the acreage for proposed products within the Office Core area of the project site and a minimum floor area ratio of 1.0 as planned for the Office Core designation in the Land Use chapter of the INSP. 2 The calculated target buildout of the project site considered in the INSP. 3 The maximum height allowed in the project site.

Source: Appendix A; City of Livermore 2020
This WSA Update assesses the difference in water demands between the proposed project and the approved project, as summarized in the table above, in comparison to the anticipated water supply availability and reliability from the local water supply providers. Water demands are addressed below in Section 1.3, followed by water supply providers which are discussed in Section 1.4.

1.3 Water Demands
Water demands of the approved project were defined in the 2017 WSA for the INSP for both the City of Livermore’s LMW and Cal Water-Livermore service areas, as the INSP would include development within both service territories. As discussed below in Section 1.4, Water Supply Providers, the proposed project would only affect development within LMW’s service area. Water demands of the approved project are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Approved Project Water Demands (AFY)
Water Supplier Proposed Development Existing Development Total Livermore Municipal Water (LMW) 441 395 836
Cal Water-Livermore 153 36 189
Total 594 431 1,025
Source: City of Livermore 2017: 11
As shown in the table, the approved project would introduce new development with water demands totaling 594 acre-feet per year (AFY); in combination with the 431 AFY demands of existing development, total water demand of the approved INSP would be 1,025 AFY, across the service territories of LMW and Cal Water-Livermore.

As discussed in the introduction to this section, water demands of the approved project were assessed in the 2017 WSA for the INSP and accounted for in the LMW and Zone 7 2020 UWMPs. The 2017 WSA concluded that the additional water demand associated with development proposed under the INSP, as presented above in Table 2, would represent less than one percent of total demands for LMW and Cal Water-Livermore combined, and is therefore within the margin of error for water supply planning purposes (City of Livermore 2017: 12). The 2020 UWMPs for LMW and Zone 7, which are discussed in detail in Section 1.4, Water Supply Providers, below, determined that

EXHIBIT D
2249
with the approved project’s new water demands, sufficient supplies would be available during normal year and dry year conditions, including during potential shortages requiring implementation of the providers’ respective WSCPs to ensure supply sufficiency.

The proposed project would introduce new water demands that were not accounted for in the 2017 WSA or the 2020 UWMPs. In comparison to the approved project, the proposed project would increase residential development by 1,431 units and decrease office space by 1,531,486 square feet.

Table 3, below, presents water demands of the proposed project in comparison to the approved project, including increased demand for residential uses and decreased demand for office space.

Table 3 Proposed Project Water Demands
Proposed Land Use Water Use Rate1
Water Demands
(GPD)
Water Demands
(AFY)2
+1,431 residential units3  Multi-family: 94 GPD/unit +134,514 +151 -1,531,486 sf of office
space4
 Office Core (6.53 acres): 2,070 GPD/acre
 Business Park (26.83 acres): 690 GPD/acre
-32,030 -36
Difference n/a +102,484 +115

1. Water use rates were identified in the 2017 WSA for the approved project; the same water use rates were used to calculate demands of the proposed project to provided consistency between the 2017 WSA and this WSA Update.

2. AFY = (gallons per day*365 days per year)/325,851 gallons per acre-foot

3. The 1,431 additional residential units include 350 units on APN 905-10-23, Comcast Parcel West (INSP 1d), 512 units on APN 905- 10-24, Comcast Parcel East (INSP 1d), and 913 units on APN 903-10-36-3, BART Parcel West (INSP 3a), less the 344 unit shortfall.

4. The 1,531,486 sf of reduced office space include 6.53 acres in the Office Core and 26.83 acres in the Business Park.

Sf = square feet
As shown in the table, the proposed project would increase water demands of the approved project by approximately 115 AFY. This new demand would be for potable water, as it would serve new residential units and office space; non-potable water needs associated with the INSP were already accounted for in the approved project demands reflected in Table 2 and accounted for in the 2020 UWMPs. Because the proposed project demands were not previously accounted for in local water supply planning documents, they are assessed herein using the same approach employed for analysis of the approved project in the 2017 WSA.

1.4 Water Supply Providers
The INSP area is within the jurisdiction of two water suppliers, the City of Livermore’s LMW and Cal Water-Livermore. Both suppliers receive water supply from Zone 7, a wholesaler of imported surface water and stored water for retailers within the Livermore-Amador Valley. Development associated with the proposed project would occur exclusively within LMW’s service territory; therefore, this WSA Update does not include analysis of Cal Water-Livermore as a water supply source. Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by LMW, which receives imported surface water supply from Zone 7.

The 2017 WSA for the approved project was informed by the 2015 UWMPs for LMW and Zone 7.

Since approval of the 2017 WSA, LMW and Zone 7 have each published a 2020 UWMP with updated supply availability projections that account for current and anticipated land uses, including the approved project as detailed in Table 1. This WSA Update includes supply and demand tables from the respective 2020 UWMPs to inform consideration of water supply availability and reliability for the proposed project’s new water demands of 115 AFY.

EXHIBIT D
2250
LMW Supply Sources
LMW obtains all of its potable water as imported surface water provided by Zone 7, discussed below. LMW does not self-supply surface water and does not pump groundwater to meet any water demands of the municipal water service area (City of Livermore 2021: 45). LMW has access to shortterm, emergency water transfers through interties with the California Water Service Company, City of Pleasanton, and Dublin-San Ramon Services District, as well as a small intertie with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) water system via the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

LMW produces and distributes recycled water meeting Title 22 disinfected tertiary recycled water requirements for beneficial use and in accordance with their Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit. The City owns and operates the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP), which currently distributes an average of about 2.2 million gallons per day (MGD) of recycled water, with a peak demand of almost 3.3 MGD, and a design capacity of up to 8 MGD. The LWRP treats all wastewater collected within the city limits of Livermore, which includes the entire LMW service area and the Cal Water-Livermore service area.

Zone 7 Supply Sources
Zone 7 water supply sources include imported surface water, local surface runoff, and stored water.

On average, imported surface water directly provides 80 percent of the water that Zone 7 supplies, locally captured watershed runoff makes up 10 percent, and previously-imported supplies stored in the local groundwater basin make up the remaining 10 percent (Zone 7 2021: 45). Groundwater is not considered a separate source of supply because Zone 7 only extracts water from underground storage that is recharged from surface water supplies (Zone 7 2021: 45).

The projects presented below are designed for use during all water year types (normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year), and are accounted for in the projections of water supply availability and reliability presented in Zone 7’s 2020 UWMP; see Section 3, Supply Availability Projections.

These sources were also accounted for in Zone 7’s 2015 UWMP, which informed the 2017 WSA for the approved project.

Existing Supplies
 State Water Project (SWP) Table A. Each SWP contractor is limited to a maximum annual contract amount as specified in Article 6(c) and Table A of the SWP Contract; this amount is therefore commonly referred to as “Table A” supplies. Zone 7’s current Table A allocation is 80,619 AFY. The amount of Table A water physically available in a given year depends upon hydrologic conditions and other demands on the SWP system, as well as the extent of SWP water in storage, SWP facility capacity, and environmental/regulatory requirements. (Zone 7 2021: 49)
 SWP Carryover. As a SWP contractor, Zone 7 has the option to store unused Table A water from one year to the next in the SWP’s San Luis Reservoir, when there is storage capacity available.

This “carryover” water is also called Article 12e or 56c water, in reference to the relevant contract terms. Article 12e water must be taken by March 31 of the following year, but Article 56c water may remain as carryover as long as San Luis Reservoir storage is available. Zone 7 assumes it would carry over 10,000 acre-feet (AF) of water each year on average.

EXHIBIT D
2251
 Arroyo Valle. Zone 7 also stores local runoff from the Arroyo Valle watershed in a local reservoir (Lake Del Valle) located in Livermore Valley, which is owned by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a SWP storage reservoir and operated by the East Bay Regional Parks District.
 Main Basin. Zone 7 overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin No. 2-10), where the Main Basin Management Area (Main Basin) is used by Zone 7 as a storage facility.

Zone 7 does not have access to naturally recharged water, and only withdraws water that has been artificially recharged with surface water supplies.  Semitropic. Since 1998, Zone 7 has acquired 78,000 AF of groundwater banking storage capacity available to augment water supplies during drought and emergency conditions and as needed.

Zone 7 can store up to 5,883 AFY (less 10 percent loss) in the Semitropic Water Storage District (Semitropic) groundwater bank. Under the contract terms, Zone 7 can request up to 9,100 AF of pumpback water (pumped from the Semitropic aquifer into the SWP system) and up to 8,645 AF of Table A exchange water.
 Cawelo. Since 2006, Zone 7 has acquired 120,000 AF of groundwater banking storage capacity available with the Cawelo Water District (Cawelo). Zone 7 can store up to 5,000 AFY in the groundwater bank. Zone 7 can request up to 10,000 AFY of pumpback (or SWP exchange water) from Cawelo.

Planned Supplies
 Bay Area Regional Desalination Project (BARDP) and Potable Reuse. The BARDP involves constructing a regional brackish water treatment plant in collaboration with Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) that would produce 10-20 MGD of desalinated water for reuse. Potable Reuse involves treating wastewater, with lower-yield estimates relying only on Livermore wastewater supply (year-round operations) and higher-yield estimates incorporating seasonal availability of wastewater from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) (Zone 7 2021: 70). As described above in Table 4 and the associated footnotes, Zone 7 anticipates reliably receiving approximately 5,000 AFY from the BARDP and/or Potable Reuse, with either or both systems online by 2030 (Zone 7 2021: 70); the estimated Zone 7 water yield from this project will be refined further and will depend on project yield and demands from the final participants.  Delta Conveyance Project (DCP). DWR’s proposed DCP would install a new tunnel to convey freshwater from north of the Delta to a point south of the Delta to increase SWP reliability and improve water quality. The DCP is not anticipated to be in service until the end of the 2020 UWMP planning period, and its impacts on supply were not included in DWR’s 2019 Delivery Capability Report (DCR) for the SWP; however, in November 2020, the Zone 7 Board approved continued participation in the DCP at a 2.2 percent participation level based on Zone 7’s Table A amount of 80,619 AF, which equates to 1,773 AF (Zone 7 2021: 68).  Los Vaqueros Reservoir (LVR) Expansion. LVR is an off-stream reservoir owned by CCWD and located in southeastern Contra Costa County. It was constructed in 1997 and currently has a capacity of 160,000 AF. CCWD is planning to further expand the reservoir to 275,000 AF and construct the Transfer-Bethany Pipeline, which would connect the reservoir to the SBA and the California Aqueduct, increasing water supply reliability for Bay Area water agencies (Zone 7 2021: 72).

EXHIBIT D
2252
 Sites Reservoir Project. Sites Reservoir is a proposed new 1,500,000 AF off-stream storage reservoir in northern California near Maxwell. In its 2019 Water Supply Evaluation (WSE) Update, Zone 7 considered 5,000 to 10,000 AFY of average yield from Sites Reservoir, in combination with other water supply options. The availability of this supply was varied based on hydrology, with more water delivered to Zone 7 during dry years. At Zone 7’s request, water would be released from Sites Reservoir annually to the Sacramento River, then conveyed by the SWP system through the Delta and to the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA).  SWP Transfers. A transfer agreement with another SWP contractor using the SWP system— which Zone 7 is already invested in—is likely the most expedient and cost-effective transfer option. The transfer amount could vary from year-to-year depending on hydrology but could average between 5,000 and 10,000 AFY. For the 2020 UWMP, Zone 7 assumed a constant 5,000 AFY in water transfers through 2030.
 Chain of Lakes. Chain of Lakes is a series of former or active gravel quarry pits in the heart of the Livermore-Amador Valley, connected through a series of conduits. The Chain of Lakes would ultimately cover approximately 1,500 acres and have about 150,000 AF of total storage volume, of which 31,000 AF is estimated to be available for operational storage (Zone 7 2021: 73).

Table 4, below, provides further discussion of the supply sources listed above, including implementation timelines.

Table 4 Water Supply Development Projects and Programs
Project or Program1 Parties Involved2 Overview
Implementation
Year
Expected Increase in
Water Supply (AF)3
Bay Area Regional
Desalination Project
(BARDP)
Zone 7; CCWD;
SFPUC; SCVWD
Brackish water
desalination in
eastern Contra Costa
County
2030 5,6004
Potable Reuse Zone 7; City of
Livermore; DSRSD;
City of Pleasanton;
Cal Water-Livermore
Use of purified water
derived from
wastewater effluent
to supplement
potable water
supplies
2030 4,000 – 7,0004
Delta Conveyance
Project
Zone 7; DWR; other
SWP Contractors
Construction of new
intakes and tunnel as
part of the SWP
2040 1,7735
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir (LVR)
Expansion
Zone 7; CCWD; Bay
Area M&I water
agencies, GWD, and
SLDMWA
Expansion of LVR and
construction of the
Transfer-Bethany
Pipeline to connect
LVR to the South Bay
Aqueduct and
California Aqueduct
2025 (Pipeline)
and 2030 (LVR
Expansion)
10,0006
Sites Reservoir
Project
Zone 7; Sites Project
Authority; Sites
Reservoir Project
committee members
Construction of a
new 1.5-million-AF
off-stream reservoir
in Colusa County
2030 10,000

EXHIBIT D
2253
Project or Program1 Parties Involved2 Overview
Implementation
Year
Expected Increase in
Water Supply (AF)3
State Water Project
(SWP) Transfers
Other SWP
contractors
Temporary water
transfer agreements
until major water
projects are
implemented
2021 Varies
Chain of Lakes Zone 7; EBMUD Provide alternate
means of delivering
water to Zone 7
during Delta and/or
SBA outages
2030 Varies

1. These projects are in the conceptual or planning stages and Zone 7 is participating in planning efforts. It is expected that a subset of these projects would be needed to meet future water demands and increase the reliability of Zone 7's system. The planned supply and implementation year are estimates and may need to be adjusted when a final project/program has been approved.

2. The “parties involved” are potential partners; final participation will be determined when the project has been approved by the respective agencies' governing boards. CCWD = Contra Costa Water District; DSRSD = Dublin San Ramon Services District; DWR = Department of Water Resources; EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utilities District; GWD = Grassland Water District; M&I = Municipal and Industrial; SBA = South Bay Aqueduct; SCVWD = Santa Clara Valley Water District; SFPUC = San Francisco Public Utilities District; SLDMWA = San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority; SWP = State Water Project

3. Volumes are in acre-feet (AF).

4. Zone 7’s 2020 UWMP assumes that the BARDP, producing desalinated brackish water, and/or Potable Reuse, producing purified water from wastewater effluent, would provide approximately 5,000 AFY of new supply, with either or both systems anticipated to be online by 2030 (Zone 7 2021: 70). As stated in table note (1) above, it is expected that a subset of planned future projects and programs would be needed to meet future water demands. The BARDP and Potable Reuse are both joint ventures with multiple other parties involved; while this table shows the total water supply benefit associated with the BARDP and Potable Reuse, Zone 7 anticipates the portion of new water that would be available to Zone 7 is approximately 5,000 AFY (Zone 7 2021: 77).

5. The Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) is not anticipated to be in service until the end of the 2020 UWMP planning period, and its impacts on supply were not included in DWR’s 2019 Delivery Capability Report (DCR) for the SWP; however, in November 2020, the Zone 7 Board approved continued participation in the DCP at a 2.2 percent participation level based on Zone 7’s Table A amount of 80,619 AF, which equates to 1,773 AF (Zone 7 2021: 68).

6. Zone 7’s 2019 Water Supply Evaluation Update assumes emergency storage in Los Vaqueros Reservoir at 10,000 AF (Zone 7 2021: 73).

Source: Zone 7 2021: 75

EXHIBIT D
2254
2 Senate Bill 610
SB 610 was passed by the California Senate on January 1, 2002, amending California Water Code to require detailed analysis of water supply availability for certain types of development projects. The purpose of SB 610 is to improve the linkage between water and land use planning by ensuring greater communication between water providers and local planning agencies, and ensuring that land use decisions for certain large development projects are fully informed as to whether sufficient water supplies are available to meet project demands.

SB 610 requires the preparation of a WSA for certain types of projects that are subject to CEQA and would use groundwater to meet some or all of the project’s water demands. A WSA is required to address the questions listed below, with responses provided for the proposed project. 1) Is there a public water system that will service the proposed project? Yes, there is a public water system that will service the project. The INSP area is within the service territory of two existing water suppliers, LMW and Cal Water-Livermore. The proposed project, which would add 1,431 residential units and remove 1,531,486 square feet of office space from the approved project, is located exclusively within the service territory of LMW.

Therefore, this WSA Update addresses LMW and Zone 7 as LMW’s wholesale supplier. 2) Is there a current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that accounts for the project demand?
There are two UWMPs applicable to the proposed project, including the LMW 2020 UWMP and the Zone 7 2020 UWMP. Both UWMPs account for the water demands of the approved project, based upon previous CEQA documents and the 2017 WSA for the INSP, and both UWMPs determined there is sufficient water supply available to reliably meet the demands of the approved INSP over a 20-year planning horizon and with consideration to varying climatic conditions (normal water year, single dry year, multiple dry years). The proposed project would increase water demands of the approved project by approximately 115 AFY (37.5 MG/Year), as discussed in Section 1.2, Water Demands. This WSA Update includes data from the 2020 UWMPs to inform consideration of water supply availability and reliability for the proposed project’s increased water demand of 115 AFY.
3) Is groundwater a component of the supplies for the project? No, groundwater is not a component of supplies for the project. Water supply for the project would be provided by LMW, which provides imported surface water from Zone 7 and locally developed recycled water. Zone 7 uses the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (Main Basin) to store surplus surface water when available, and also participates in groundwater banking projects in cooperation with Semitropic and Cawelo; however, the source water used to conduct such recharge is surface water, not local groundwater. Zone 7 withdraws only as much water from the groundwater storage areas as was recharged for storage; Zone 7 does not produce local groundwater as part of its water supply portfolio.

EXHIBIT D
2255
4) Are there sufficient supplies to serve the project over the next twenty years? This WSA Update assesses the water supply availability and reliability for the 115 AFY of increased demand that would occur under the proposed project, based upon data provided in the 2020 UWMPs for LMW and Zone 7. Please see Section 4, Findings and Recommendations, for further discussion.

The primary question to be answered in a WSA is:

Will the total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection meet the projected water demand of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses of the identified water supplies, including agricultural and manufacturing uses?
This WSA Update builds upon the 2017 WSA for the INSP to assess water supply availability and reliability for the proposed project’s additional water demands of approximately 115 AFY, which were not previously accounted for in the 2017 WSA or the 2020 UWMPs for LMW and Zone 7.

Section 4, Conclusions, addresses the WSA question presented above, regarding the sufficiency of available water supplies to meet projected demands over 20 years and with consideration to normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years.

EXHIBIT D
2256
3 Supply Availability Projections
The 2017 WSA for the INSP (approved project) was informed by the 2015 UWMPs for LMW, which would provide water service to the proposed project area, and for Zone 7, which provides imported surface water supply to LMW. Zone 7 also provides supply reliability to its retailers, including LMW, during dry year conditions through the use of stored surplus water and groundwater banking operations. As discussed in Section 2, Senate Bill 610, neither LMW nor Zone 7 produces local groundwater as part of its supply portfolio.

This section provides supply and demand comparisons for both water providers, LMW and Zone 7, for all climatic conditions required for consideration in a WSA, including normal water year conditions, single dry year conditions, and multiple dry year conditions. The purpose of this section is to inform consideration of water supply availability and reliability for the proposed project, which would increase water demands by 115 AFY compared to the approved project.

3.1 Normal Water Year
Livermore Municipal Water
Table 5, below, provides an overview of LMW’s projected supply and demands through 2045 under normal water year (non-drought) conditions. During a normal water year, purchased supplies from Zone 7 are assumed to provide 100 percent of the LMW’S potable water demand.

Table 5 LMW Normal Water Year Conditions (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Total 8,338 8,559 8,780 9,004 9,004
Demand Total 8,338 8,559 8,780 9,004 9,004
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
* Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Livermore 2021: 69
As shown in the table, LMW projects that available supply is sufficient to meet projected demands during normal water year conditions through 2045, which is the anticipated buildout of the approved INSP. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 1.3 to 1.4 percent of LMW’s total demands during normal year conditions. As shown in Section 1.3, Water Demands, the proposed project would introduce an additional 115 AFY of potable water demand to LMW’s service territory. LMW would acquire this potable water from Zone 7, discussed below.

LMW would offset increasing potable demands with recycled water produced from local wastewater used for non-potable purposes including landscaping throughout the INSP. As reported in its 2020 UWMP, LMW anticipates producing approximately 1,890 AF (616 MG) of recycled water in 2025, which would increase to 2,059 AF (671 MG) in 2045; this increase is associated with buildout of the INSP and associated use of recycled water for landscape irrigation (City of Livermore 2021: 69). The proposed project’s additional water demand of 115 AFY equates to approximately

5.6 percent of LMW’s planned recycled water production in 2045, or approximately 1.3 percent of LMW’s potable supply from Zone 7 in 2045, for normal water year conditions.

EXHIBIT D
2257
Zone 7 Water Agency
Table 6, below, provides an overview of Zone 7’s projected supply and demands through 2045 under normal water year (non-drought) conditions. Zone 7 provides supply reliability through storage of surplus supplies as carryover, as recharge to the Main Basin (of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin) for later use when needed, and as banked water in Kern County groundwater banks managed by Semitropic and Cawelo. The supply projections shown below are representative of expected normal conditions or normal operational targets (Zone 7 2021: 102).

Table 6 Zone 7 Normal Water Year Conditions (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supplies1
SWP Table A 47,000 46,000 45,000 43,500 43,500
SWP Carryover 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Arroyo Valle 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Main Basin 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200
BARDP/Potable Reuse 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Sites Reservoir Project 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Transfers 5,000 5,000 0 0 0
Supply Totals 76,700 90,700 84,700 83,200 83,200
Demands
Retailer Demand 43,000 43,200 43,400 43,700 43,700
Untreated Water Demand 5,500 7,800 8,300 8,300 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 800 800 800 800 800
Losses 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Demand Totals 50,300 52,80 53,800 55,300 55,300
Difference 26,400 37,900 30,900 27,900 27,900

1. Please see Section 1.3, Water Supply Providers, for an overview of Zone 7’s water supply sources.

2. Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Zone 7 2021: 102
As shown in the table, Zone 7 anticipates that available supply is sufficient to meet projected demands during normal water year conditions through 2045. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 0.2 percent of Zone 7’s total demands during normal year conditions. As described above, Zone 7 stores and banks surplus supplies for future use as needed, thereby providing supply reliability to its retailers, including LMW, through variable climatic conditions.

3.2 Single Dry Water Year
Livermore Municipal Water
Table 7, below, below, provides an overview of LMW’s projected supply and demands through 2045 under single dry-year conditions, which would be provided by Zone 7 as imported surface water; as discussed below, LMW also produces recycled water from local wastewater flows to offset potable water uses. The table below assumes that water demands during a single dry year would be the

EXHIBIT D
2258
same as demands during a normal water year; this is a conservative approach because during dry years, conservation measures would likely reduce local demands. In addition, the single dry year is based on 2014 critically dry conditions which is the historically lowest allocation from the SWP within the modeling time period of 1922 through 2003; this scenario assumes the worst local conditions with no local water available (City of Livermore 2021: 69).

Table 7 LMW Single Dry-Year Conditions (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Total 8,338 8,559 8,780 9,004 9,004
Demand Total 8,338 8,559 8,780 9,004 9,004
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
* Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: City of Livermore 2021: 70
As shown in the table, LMW anticipates it would receive sufficient supply from Zone 7 to meet projected demands for potable water during single dry-year conditions through 2045. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 1.3 to 1.4 percent of LMW’s potable water demands during single dry-year conditions.

Single dry year supplies are anticipated to be reliable because during drought conditions, demand would be reduced in accordance with LMW’s 2020 WSCP, and because Zone 7 would draw from stored supplies to deliver potable water to LMW, as discussed below under “Zone 7 Water Agency.” In addition, LMW would continue producing recycled wastewater to offset potable water uses; as stated in Section 3.1, LMW anticipated producing 1,890 AF of recycled water in 2025, increasing to 2,059 AF in 2045. Recycled wastewater is considered a drought-proof supply source because it is based upon municipal water uses which occur during all climatic conditions.

Zone 7 Water Agency
Table 8, below, provides an overview of Zone 7’s projected supply and demands through 2045 under single dry-year conditions. These values reflect average output from Zone 7’s water supply risk model, which was initialized given 2020 conditions and configured to simulate a single dry year beginning in each year required in the drought risk assessment (e.g., 2025, 2030, etc.) (Zone 7 2021:
103). The single dry year is based on 2014 critically dry conditions, the worst-case scenario for the SWP with five percent water deliveries, such that Zone 7 would receive approximately 4,000 AF of its maximum 80,619-AFY Table A allocation of SWP water. This scenario also assumes the worst local conditions with no local water available (Zone 7 2021: 103).

EXHIBIT D
2259
Table 8 Zone 7 Single Dry-Year Conditions (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supplies1
SWP Table A 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400
SWP Carryover 15,500 12,000 13,800 12,600 12,700
Main Basin 27,600 29,900 31,800 32,200 32,500
Semitropic 6,500 6,600 6,600 6,500 6,500
Cawelo 7,100 7,100 7,100 7,100 7,000
BARDP/Potable Reuse 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Sites Reservoir Project 0 14,200 15,700 15,300 15,100
Transfers 4,500 4,600 0 0 0
Chain of Lakes 0 8,300 9,800 9,400 9,100
Supply Totals 65,600 91,100 94,200 92,500 92,300
Demands
Retailer Demand 43,000 43,200 43,400 43,700 43,700
Untreated Water Demand 5,500 7,800 8,300 8,300 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 800 800 800 800 800
Losses 1,000 1,000 1,300 2,500 2,500
Demand Totals 50,300 52,800 53,800 55,300 55,300
Difference 15,300 39,300 40,400 37,200 37,000

1. Please see Section 1.3, Water Supply Providers, for an overview of Zone 7’s water supply sources.

2. Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Zone 7 2021:104
As shown in the table, Zone 7 projects that available supply is sufficient to meet projected demands during normal water year conditions through 2045. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 0.2 percent of Zone 7’s total demands during single dry-year conditions.

Compared to normal water year conditions, during a single dry year, Zone 7 does not anticipate collecting surface runoff from the Arroyo Valle watershed, and would rely on water stored in the Semitropic and Cawelo groundwater banking programs, as well as the Chain of Lakes.

Water savings from conservation are not included in the demands shown above; any extra supply as a result of conservation would remain in storage or go towards storage (Zone 7 2021: 103). The table above shows that during a single dry-year, Zone 7 would have a surplus of 15,300 AF in 2025, increasing to 37,000 AF in 2040; as discussed in Section 1.4, Water Supply Providers, these projections assume buildout of planned water supply projects. It is possible that operational constraints may occur during dry-year conditions, such as during a Delta outage that reduces water moving through the SBA from the Delta. Due to planned water projects currently being in planning stages or not fully operational yet, near-term water supply shortages could occur until such projects are implemented (Zone 7 2021: 103). Zone 7’s 2020 WSCP would be implemented to address shortages, as needed, and could include voluntary or mandatory conservation measures and operational adjustments (Zone 7 2021: 103).

The proposed project’s additional water demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 0.23 percent of Zone 7’s total anticipated demands in 2025 and 0.21 percent of its total demands in 2045, under single dry-year conditions. For comparison, as discussed in Section 1.3, Water Demands, under

EXHIBIT D
2260
Table 2, the 2017 WSA for the approved project concluded that water demands for the INSP represented less than one percent of total demands for LMW and Cal Water-Livermore, and are therefore considered within the margin of error for water supply planning purposes (City of Livermore 2017: 12).

3.3 Multiple Dry Water Years
Livermore Municipal Water
Table 9, below, provides an overview of LMW’s projected supply and demands through 2045 under multiple dry-year conditions, which would be provided by Zone 7 as imported surface water; as discussed below, LMW also produces recycled water from local wastewater flows to offset potable water uses. The table below is informed by a water supply risk model that simulates varying hydrologic conditions based upon the five-consecutive-dry-year scenario that occurred from 1987 through 1991 (City of Livermore 2021: 70).

Table 9 LMW Multiple Dry-Year Conditions (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Supply Total 8,338 8,559 8,780 9,004 9,004
Demand Total 8,338 8,559 8,780 9,004 9,004
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supply Total 8,338 8,605 8,826 9,004 9,004
Demand Total 8,338 8,605 8,826 9,004 9,004
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Supply Total 8,427 8,648 8,869 9,004 9,004
Demand Total 8,427 8,648 8,869 9,004 9,004
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supply Total 8,470 8,692 8,915 9,004 9,004
Demand Total 8,470 8,692 8,915 9,004 9,004
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Supply Total 8,516 8,737 8,958 9,004 9,004
Demand Total 8,516 8,737 8,958 9,004 9,004
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
* Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: City of Livermore 2021: 70-71
As shown in the table, LMW anticipates it would receive sufficient supply from Zone 7 to meet projected potable demands during multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. Purchased supplies from Zone 7 are assumed to provide 100 percent of LMW’s potable water demand and recycled water would be produced to meet all non-potable demands during the multiple dry-year event (City

EXHIBIT D
2261
of Livermore 2021: 70). The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately

1.3 percent to 1.4 percent of LMW’s potable water demands during multiple dry-year conditions.

Multiple dry-year supplies from Zone 7 are anticipated to be reliable because during drought conditions, demand would be reduced in accordance with LMW’s 2020 WSCP, and because Zone 7 would draw from stored supplies to deliver potable water to LMW, as discussed below under “Zone 7 Water Agency.” In addition, as with the single dry-year scenario, LMW would continue producing recycled wastewater to offset potable water uses, with 1,890 AF of recycled water expected in 2025, increasing to 2,059 AF in 2045.

Zone 7 Water Agency
Table 10, below, provides an overview of Zone 7’s projected supply and demands through 2045 during the first year of multiple dry-year conditions.

Table 10 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 1 (AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supplies1
SWP Table A 19,900 19,500 19,500 19,500 19,400
SWP Carryover 15,500 12,000 13,800 12,600 12,700
Arroyo Valle 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
Main Basin 27,600 29,900 31,800 32,200 32,500
Semitropic 10,000 9,900 10,000 10,000 9,900
Cawelo 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700
BARDP/Potable Reuse 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Sites Reservoir Project 0 15,300 17,000 16,800 16,600
Transfers 4,800 4,800 0 0 0
Chain of Lakes 0 8,800 10,000 9,600 9,300
Supply Totals 89,200 116,600 118,500 117,100 116,800
Demands
Retailer Demand 43,00 43,200 43,400 43,700 43,700
Untreated Water Demand 5,500 7,800 8,300 8,300 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 800 800 800 800 800
Losses 1,000 1,000 1,300 2,500 2,500
Demand Totals 50,300 52,800 53,800 55,300 55,300
Difference 38,900 63,800 64,700 61,800 61,500

1. Please see Section 1.3, Water Supply Providers, for an overview of Zone 7’s water supply sources.

2. Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Zone 7 2021: 105
As shown in the table, Zone 7 projects that available supply is sufficient to meet projected demands during the first year of multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 0.2 percent of Zone 7’s total demands during Year 1 of multiple dry-year conditions, for all years projected.

EXHIBIT D
2262
Table 11, below, provides an overview of Zone 7’s projected supply and demands through 2045 during the second year of multiple dry-year conditions.

Table 11 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 2 (AF) 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046
Supplies1
SWP Table A 20,200 19,800 19,800 19,600 19,600
SWP Carryover 2,800 4,400 3,500 3,100 3,100
Arroyo Valle 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Main Basin 25,100 29,400 31,400 31,600 31,900
Semitropic 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Cawelo 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700
BARDP/Potable Reuse 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Sites Reservoir Project 0 18,100 18,300 17,700 17,800
Transfers 4,900 0 0 0 0
Chain of Lakes 600 7,900 8,800 8,400 8,200
Supply Totals 74,800 105,800 108,000 106,600 106,800
Demands
Retailer Demand 43,000 43,200 43,500 43,700 43,700
Untreated Water Demand 6,900 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 800 800 800 800 800
Losses 1,000 1,060 1,600 2,500 2,500
Demand Totals 51,700 53,360 54,200 55,300 55,300
Difference 23,100 52,440 53,800 51,300 51,500

1. Please see Section 1.3, Water Supply Providers, for an overview of Zone 7’s water supply sources.

2. Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Zone 7 2021: 106
As shown in the table, Zone 7 projects that available supply is sufficient to meet projected demands during the second year of multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 0.2 percent of Zone 7’s total demands during Year 2 of multiple dry-year conditions, for all years projected.

Table 12, below, provides an overview of Zone 7’s projected supply and demands through 2045 during the third year of multiple dry-year conditions.

EXHIBIT D
2263
Table 12 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 3 (AF) 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047
Supplies1
SWP Table A 20,200 19,800 19,700 19,700 19,600
SWP Carryover 1,800 2,700 2,500 2,300 2,300
Arroyo Valle 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Main Basin 20,600 28,300 30,300 30,300 30,700
Semitropic 10,000 10,000 9,900 10,000 9,900
Cawelo 9,700 9,800 9,700 9,700 9,700
BARDP/Potable Reuse 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Sites Reservoir Project 0 16,600 16,400 16,300 16,300
Transfers 4,900 0 0 0 0
Chain of Lakes 400 6,900 7,700 7,500 7,300
Supply Totals 69,100 100,600 102,700 102,300 102,300
Demands
Retailer Demand 43,100 43,300 43,500 43,700 43,700
Untreated Water Demand 7,100 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 800 800 800 800 800
Losses 1,000 1,120 1,800 2,500 2,500
Demand Totals 52,000 53,520 54,400 55,300 55,300
Difference 17,100 47,080 48,300 47,000 47,000

1. Please see Section 1.3, Water Supply Providers, for an overview of Zone 7’s water supply sources.

2. Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Zone 7 2021:107
As shown in the table, Zone 7 projects that available supply is sufficient to meet projected demands during the third year of multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 0.2 percent of Zone 7’s total demands during Year 3 of multiple dry-year conditions, for all years projected.

Table 13, below, provides an overview of Zone 7’s projected supply and demands through 2045 during the fourth year of multiple dry-year conditions.

EXHIBIT D
2264
Table 13 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 4 (AF) 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048
Supplies1
SWP Table A 20,200 19,500 19,800 19,700 19,800
SWP Carryover 1,800 2,100 2,000 1,900 1,900
Arroyo Valle 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Main Basin 15,100 26,900 28,800 28,600 28,900
Semitropic 10,100 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Cawelo 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700
BARDP/Potable Reuse 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Sites Reservoir Project 0 16,000 16,000 15,900 15,900
Transfers 4,900 0 0 0 0
Chain of Lakes 300 6,000 6,700 6,600 6,500
Supply Totals 63,600 96,700 99,500 98,900 99,200
Demands
Retailer Demand 43,100 43,300 43,600 43,700 43,700
Untreated Water Demand 7,350 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 800 800 800 800 800
Losses 1,000 1,180 2,000 2,500 2,500
Demand Totals 52,250 53,580 54,700 55,300 55,300
Difference 11,350 43,120 44,800 43,600 43,900

1. Please see Section 1.3, Water Supply Providers, for an overview of Zone 7’s water supply sources.

2. Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Zone 7 2021: 108
As shown in the table, Zone 7 projects that available supply is sufficient to meet projected demands during the fourth year of multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 0.2 percent of Zone 7’s total demands during Year 4 of multiple dry-year conditions, for all years projected.

Table 14, below, provides an overview of Zone 7’s projected supply and demands through 2045 during the fifth year of multiple dry-year conditions.

EXHIBIT D
2265
Table 14 Zone 7 Multiple Dry-Year Conditions – Year 5 (AF) 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049
Supplies1
SWP Table A 20,200 19,800 19,700 19,600 19,600
SWP Carryover 1,800 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
Arroyo Valle 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Main Basin 9,700 25,200 27,000 26,500 26,900
Semitropic 10,100 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Cawelo 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,700
BARDP/Potable Reuse 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Sites Reservoir Project 0 15,800 15,800 15,800 15,700
Transfers 4,900 0 0 0 0
Chain of Lakes 300 5,200 5,900 5,900 5,800
Supply Totals 58,200 94,100 96,500 95,900 96,100
Demands
Retailer Demand 43,100 43,400 43,600 43,700 43,700
Untreated Water Demand 7,600 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300
Direct Retail Demand 800 800 800 800 800
Losses 1,000 1,240 2,300 2,500 2,500
Demand Totals 52,500 53,740 55,000 55,300 55,300
Difference 5,700 40,360 41,500 40,600 40,800

1. Please see Section 1.3, Water Supply Providers, for an overview of Zone 7’s water supply sources.

2. Volumes reported in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Zone 7 2021: 109
As shown in the table, Zone 7 projects that available supply is sufficient to meet projected demands during the fifth year of multiple dry-year conditions through 2045. The proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 0.2 percent of Zone 7’s total demands during Year 5 of multiple dry-year conditions, for all years projected.

As discussed in Section 3.2, Single Dry Water Year, water savings from conservation are not included in the demands shown above; any extra supply as a result of conservation would remain in storage or go towards storage (Zone 7 2021: 103). It is possible that operational constraints may occur during dry-year conditions, and that such constraints could result in near-term water supply shortages before major water supply projects are implemented (Zone 7 2021: 103). In such cases, Zone 7’s 2020 WSCP would be implemented and could include voluntary or mandatory conservation measures and operational adjustments to minimize shortages (Zone 7 2021: 103).

EXHIBIT D
2266
4 Conclusions
The proposed project is estimated to increase potable water demand in the INSP area by approximately 115 AFY, compared to the approved project which was analyzed in the 2017 WSA for the INSP and accounted for in the 2020 UWMPs for LMW and Zone 7. The proposed project demand of 115 AFY would occur only within LMW’s service territory, and LMW would provide water for the project purchased from Zone 7, which provides all of LMW’s potable water supply. The proposed project’s new water demand of 115 AFY is not explicitly identified in LMW or Zone 7’s 2020 UWMP; therefore, this WSA Update includes supply and demand projections from both UWMPs to consider potential availability of 115 AFY of additional potable water to meet the proposed project demands.

As discussed in Section 1.3, Water Demands, the 2017 WSA for the INSP concluded that water demands of the approved project would represent less than one percent of total demands for LMW and Cal Water-Livermore combined, and demands of this size are considered within the margin of error for water supply planning purposes (City of Livermore 2017: 12). The supply and demand tables in Section 3, Supply Availability Projections, indicate that LMW and Zone 7 both anticipate having sufficient supply available to meet demands under all climatic scenarios, and that the proposed project’s new demand of 115 AFY would represent a very small portion of those demands.

Under all projected scenarios (normal year, single dry year, multiple dry year), the proposed project demand of 115 AFY represents approximately 1.3 to 1.4 percent of LMW’s total demands, and approximately 0.2 percent of Zone 7’s total demands for the same years. Consistent with the rationale of the 2017 WSA’s conclusions, the proposed project’s water demands are within the margin of error for water supply projections.

As discussed throughout Section 3, Supply Availability Projections, LMW expects to have sufficient potable water supply available through Zone 7 under all considered climatic conditions. During drought years, water demands would be reduced as needed through implementation of the LMW and Zone 7 WSCPs, and Zone 7 would use its storage projects to access water that was stored during surplus years for later use during dry years. In addition, LMW is producing recycled wastewater that would be used for non-potable uses under the INSP, offsetting demands for potable water from Zone 7. Zone 7 expects to have surplus water supply available under all considered climatic conditions. As discussed in Section 1.4, Water Supply Providers, Zone 7 utilizes a suite of storage options including below-ground storage (Semitropic and Cawelo) and planned reservoir storage (Sites Reservoir and LVR Expansion) to support its water supply reliability during dry conditions.

Zone 7’s anticipated water supply availability accounts for key projects that are currently in the planning or implementation stages, such as the Delta Conveyance Project (see Table 4), which would increase the reliability of SWP deliveries. If operational constraints such as an outage of the SWP system through the Delta were to occur prior to the completion of planned water supply projects, near-term water supply shortages could occur. In the case of an anticipated water supply shortage, both LMW and Zone 7 have a 2020 WSCP that would be implemented to reduce local demands and ensure supply availability within the respective service territories. Implementation of the WSCPs could include voluntary or mandatory conservation measures and operational adjustments to minimize shortages (Zone 7 2021: 103).

Based upon the information and analysis provided in this WSA Update, as well as the 2017 WSA which is incorporated by reference herein, sufficient water supply would be available for the proposed project under normal year, single dry-year, and multiple dry-year conditions.

EXHIBIT D
2267
5 References
Livermore, City of. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June. https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5965/638192346090770000 (June 2024).
_____. 2017. Water Supply Assessment for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. Appendix A to the 2018 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4501/637229234510430000 (June 2024).
_____. 2018. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. April 27. https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4501/637229234510430000 (June 2024).
_____. 2020. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. September 30. https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6599/637583135635300000 (June 2024).
_____. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 28. https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7524/638192345835370000 (June 2024).

World Population Review. 2024. Livermore, California. https://worldpopulationreview.com/uscities/livermore-ca-population (June 2024).

Zone 7 (Zone 7 Water Agency). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan – Zone 7 Water Agency. https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0_final_2020_uwmp.pdf?1624903044 (June 2024). _____. 2023. 2022 Water Supply Evaluation Update. May.
https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/draft_zone_7_2022_wse_update_2023.03.pdf?1685462831 (June 2024).

EXHIBIT D
2268
ORDINANCE NO. ___

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 24-001, FOR

THE ISABEL CROSSING PROJECT, THAT WOULD AMEND THE ALTERNATIVE

MEANS OF COMPLIANCE AND AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 10.06.050 (“INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE”)

On September 22, 2022, the City of Livermore (“City”) received an application from the Applicant to develop the approximately 45-acre vacant parcel located at the southwest corner of the Portola Avenue and Isabel Avenue intersection with a mixed-use residential/ commercial development project.

On March 13, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023 to 2031 Livermore Housing Element, providing adequate sites to support CA’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Sixth Cycle requirements (2023 – 2031).

On May 10, 2024, the City received an amended application from the Applicant for Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8659 – Subdivision (SUB) 22-008, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-003, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-002, Consistency Determination (CD) 24-004, Master Sign Program Amendment (MSP) 24-001, Development Agreement (DA) 22-001, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 24-001, and Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 24-001 (collectively, the “Project”). The Project would develop vacant land located southwest of the Isabel Avenue and Portola Avenue intersection, implementing the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (“Project”). The Project includes 1,299 residential units, including 363 units affordable to individuals and families of lower, median, and moderate incomes, approximately 90,000 square feet of groundfloor commercial, office, and amenity space, an approximately 1.5-acre neighborhood park with an additional approximately 0.5 acres of public plaza space, new bike lanes, street improvements, street trees, public art, and utility infrastructure. The residential units consist of for sale townhomes and duplexes and mid-rise rental apartments. The Project also includes a 20-year Development Agreement between the City and Developer, a new community facilities district to finance Project infrastructure, and Specific Plan amendments. The Project is seeking relief under state housing/streamlining laws.

The City did not meet the Lower Income RHNA requirements for the Fifth RHNA Cycle (2014 – 2022).

The City’s existing Inclusionary Ordinance does not require all for-sale development projects in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan to provide Lower Income housing.

Providing adequate Lower Income affordable housing with each development project is critical to keep pace with Livermore’s RHNA requirements and to provide a range of housing opportunities for residents of all income levels.

The proposed Inclusionary Ordinance amendments would provide the City Council more flexibility to secure Lower Income affordable housing and ensure future for-sale 2269
ORDINANCE NO. ___
development projects within the Isabel Neighborhood provide Lower Income affordable units.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Purpose. This Ordinance makes several changes to Livermore Development Code Section 10.06.050 Inclusionary Ordinance to amend the Alternative Means of Compliance and Affordability requirements.

Section 2. Instruction for Publication. The amendments made by this Ordinance are made as follows for transparency. Deletions are reflected in this ordinance using a strikethrough, and new language is underlined. However, language with a strikethrough, and the underlines, will not be codified. The codification will only reflect the final language.

Exhibit B shows the final amended Development Code text.

Section 3. Amendment – Development Code. The Livermore Development Code is hereby amended as follows:

A. 10.06.050(A)(1)(c) is hereby amended so it reads as follows:
c. Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Area. In the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area, provide affordable housing in accordance with section 10.06.050(D)(4)(c) below. that at least 20 percent of the total dwelling units shall be affordable housing as follows:
(1) For-Sale Units. The affordable housing units for for-sale residential developments must be sold to median- and moderate-income households.

Livermore City CouncilJuly 22, 2024

Livermore City Council
July 22, 2024