SEC. 3.5.
Section 10631 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10631.
A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.
(b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a). If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan:
(1) A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management.
(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (c) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following:
(1) An average water year.
(2) A single dry water year.
(3) Multiple dry water years.
For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable. (d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. (e) (1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same fiveyear increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses:
(A) Single-family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof.
(I) Agricultural.
(2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a).
(f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of each water demand management measure that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the steps necessary to implement any proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily residential customers. (B) Residential plumbing retrofit.
(C) System water audits, leak detection, and repair.
(D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections. (E) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives. (F) High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs.
(G) Public information programs.
(H) School education programs.
(I) Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts. (J) Wholesale agency programs.
(K) Conservation pricing.
(L) Water conservation coordinator.
(M) Water waste prohibition.
(N) Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs. (2) A schedule of implementation for all water demand management measures proposed or described in the plan.
(3) A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will use to evaluate the effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or described under the plan. (4) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the supplier’s service area, and the effect of the savings on the supplier’s ability to further reduce demand. (g) An evaluation of each water demand management measure listed in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for implementation. In the course of the evaluation, first consideration shall be given to water demand management measures, or combination of measures, that offer lower incremental costs than expanded or additional water supplies. This evaluation shall do all of the following:
(1) Take into account economic and noneconomic factors, including environmental, social, health, customer impact, and technological factors.
(2) Include a cost-benefit analysis, identifying total benefits and total costs. (3) Include a description of funding available to implement any planned water supply project that would provide water at a higher unit cost.
(4) Include a description of the water supplier’s legal authority to implement the measure and efforts to work with other relevant agencies to ensure the implementation of the measure and to share the cost of implementation.
(h) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs, other than the demand management programs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f), that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single dry, and multiple dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program.
(i) Urban water suppliers that are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and submit annual reports to that council in accordance with the “Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California,” dated September 1991, may submit the annual reports identifying water demand management measures currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, to satisfy the requirements of subdivisions (f) and (g).
SEC. 4.
Section 10656 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10656.
An urban water supplier that does not prepare, adopt, and submit its urban water management plan to the department in accordance with this part, is ineligible to receive funding pursuant to Division 24 (commencing with Section 78500) or Division 26 (commencing with Section 79000), or receive drought assistance from the state until the urban water management plan is submitted pursuant to this article.
SEC. 4.3.
Section 10657 is added to the Water Code, to read:
10657.
(a) The department shall take into consideration whether the urban water supplier has submitted an updated urban water management plan that is consistent with Section 10631, as amended by the act that adds this section, in determining whether the urban water supplier is eligible for funds made available pursuant to any program administered by the department. (b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2006, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2006, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 4.5.
Section 10910 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10910.
(a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. (b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined in Section 10912, that may supply water for the project. If the city or county is not able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall prepare the water assessment required by this part after consulting with any entity serving domestic water supplies whose service area includes the project site, the local agency formation commission, and any public water system adjacent to the project site.
(c) (1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g). (3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. (4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
(d) (1) The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
(2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
(C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.
(e) If no water has been received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall also include in its water supply assessment pursuant to subdivision (c), an identification of the other public water systems or water service contractholders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has identified as a source of water supply within its water supply assessments. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment:
(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project.
(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.
(g) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting.
(2) Prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, if the public water system intends to request an extension of time to prepare and adopt the assessment, the public water system shall meet with the city or county to request an extension of time, which shall not exceed 30 days, to prepare and adopt the assessment.
(3) If the public water system fails to request an extension of time, or fails to submit the assessment notwithstanding the extension of time granted pursuant to paragraph (2), the city or county may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body of the public water system to comply with the requirements of this part relating to the submission of the water supply assessment. (h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, if a project has been the subject of a water supply assessment that complies with the requirements of this part, no additional water supply assessment shall be required for subsequent projects that were part of a larger project for which a water supply assessment was completed and that has complied with the requirements of this part and for which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has concluded that its water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses, unless one or more of the following changes occurs:
(1) Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project. (2) Changes in the circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the ability of the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), to provide a sufficient supply of water for the project. (3) Significant new information becomes available which was not known and could not have been known at the time when the assessment was prepared.
SEC. 5.
Section 10911 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10911.
(a) If, as a result of its assessment, the public water system concludes that its water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the public water system shall provide to the city or county its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. If the city or county, if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), concludes as a result of its assessment, that water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the city or county shall include in its water supply assessment its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. Those plans may include, but are not limited to, information concerning all of the following:
(1) The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies.
(2) All federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies. (3) Based on the considerations set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies. (b) The city or county shall include the water supply assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision (a), in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(c) The city or county may include in any environmental document an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document provided pursuant to subdivision (b). The city or county shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the city or county determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the city or county shall include that determination in its findings for the project.
SEC. 6.
Section 10912 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10912.
For the purposes of this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) “Project” means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
(b) If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then “project” means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections.
(c) “Public water system” means a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that has 3000 or more service connections. A public water system includes all of the following:
(1) Any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facility under control of the operator of the system which is used primarily in connection with the system. (2) Any collection or pretreatment storage facility not under the control of the operator that is used primarily in connection with the system.
(3) Any person who treats water on behalf of one or more public water systems for the purpose of rendering it safe for human consumption.
SEC. 7.
Section 10913 of the Water Code is repealed.
SEC. 8.
Section 10915 of the Water Code is amended to read:
10915.
The County of San Diego is deemed to comply with this part if the Office of Planning and Research determines that all of the following conditions have been met:
(a) Proposition C, as approved by the voters of the County of San Diego in November 1988, requires the development of a regional growth management plan and directs the establishment of a regional planning and growth management review board.
(b) The County of San Diego and the cities in the county, by agreement, designate the San Diego Association of Governments as that review board.
(c) A regional growth management strategy that provides for a comprehensive regional strategy and a coordinated economic development and growth management program has been developed pursuant to Proposition C.
(d) The regional growth management strategy includes a water element to coordinate planning for water that is consistent with the requirements of this part. (e) The San Diego County Water Authority, by agreement with the San Diego Association of Governments in its capacity as the review board, uses the association’s most recent regional growth forecasts for planning purposes and to implement the water element of the strategy. (f) The procedures established by the review board for the development and approval of the regional growth management strategy, including the water element and any certification process established to ensure that a project is consistent with that element, comply with the requirements of this part. (g) The environmental documents for a project located in the County of San Diego include information that accomplishes the same purposes as a water supply assessment that is prepared pursuant to Section 10910.
SEC. 9.
Section 3.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 10631 of the Water Code proposed by both this bill and AB 901. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2002, (2) each bill amends Section 10631 of the Water Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after AB 901, in which case Section 3 of this bill shall not become operative.
SEC. 10.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
APPENDIX B
2020 CITY OF MERCED, URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
FINAL
AUGUST 2021
Prepared for:
CITY OF MERCED
678 West 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
(209) 358-6858
Prepared by:
BLACK WATER CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
602 Lyell Drive
Modesto, CA 95356
(209) 322-1820
BLACK
CONSUL TING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
i
CITY OF MERCED
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONTACT SHEET
Date plan adopted: August 16, 2021
Ken Elwin, P.E., Public Works Director
City of Merced
Phone: (209) 385-6800
Fax: (209) 388-8760
Email: [email protected]
Joseph Angulo, Public Works Deputy Director
City of Merced
Phone: (209) 385-6800
Fax: (209) 388-8760
Email: [email protected]
Johnnie Baptista, Public Works Manager - Water
City of Merced
Phone: (209) 385-6800
Fax: (209) 388-8760
Email: [email protected]
Leah Brown, Water Conservation Coordinator
City of Merced
Phone: (209) 385-6800
Fax: (209) 388-8760
Email: [email protected]
Aja Verburg, P.E., Project Manager
Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Phone: (209) 753-0078
Email: [email protected]
Alison Furuya, P.E., Project Engineer
Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Phone: (209) 322-1815
Email: [email protected]
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 UWMP Introduction and Lay Description.......................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Previous Urban Water Management Plan................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Urban Water Management Planning and the California Water Code....................................... 1-1
1.3.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 ............................................................. 1-2
1.3.2 Applicable Changes to the Water Code since 2015 UWMPs............................................. 1-2
1.4 UWMPs in Relation to Other Planning Efforts........................................................................... 1-3
1.5 UWMP Organization .................................................................................................................. 1-4
1.6 Lay Description........................................................................................................................... 1-5 2 Plan Preparation ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Basis for Preparing a Plan .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Public Water Systems......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Individual Planning and Compliance.......................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure........................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Coordination and Outreach ....................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.1 Wholesale and Retail Coordination ................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.2 Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community.................................................... 2-5
2.4.3 Notice to Cities and Counties............................................................................................. 2-6 3 System Description ............................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps..................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Service Area Climate .................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics.............................................................................. 3-6
3.4.1 Service Area Population..................................................................................................... 3-6
3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors........................................................... 3-7
3.5 Land Uses within Service Area ................................................................................................... 3-7 4 Water Use Characterization............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Non-Potable versus Potable Water Use .................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector.................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Water Use Sectors Listed in Water Code........................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Water Use Sectors in Addition to Those Listed in Water Code ......................................... 4-2
4.2.3 Past Water Use................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.4 Distribution System Water Loss......................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.5 Current Water Use............................................................................................................. 4-4
4.2.6 Projected Water Use.......................................................................................................... 4-6
4.2.7 Characteristic Five-Year Water Use ................................................................................... 4-8
4.3 Water Use for Lower Income Households................................................................................. 4-9
4.4 Climate Change Considerations............................................................................................... 4-11 5 SB X7-7 Baselines, Targets, and 2020 Compliance ............................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Methods for Calculating Population and Gross Water Use ....................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Service Area Population..................................................................................................... 5-2 BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
iii
5.3 Gross Water Use ........................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.4 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use (GPCD) .............................................................. 5-3
5.5 Regional Alliance........................................................................................................................ 5-4 6 Water Supply Characterization.......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Narrative Sections for Supplier’s UWMP Water Supply Characterization................................. 6-1
6.1.1 Purchased or Imported Water........................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Groundwater...................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.2.1 Groundwater Sustainability Plan..................................................................... 6-2
6.1.2.2 Groundwater Basin Description ...................................................................... 6-3
6.1.2.3 Past Five Years................................................................................................. 6-5
6.1.3 Surface Water .................................................................................................................... 6-5
6.1.4 Stormwater........................................................................................................................ 6-5
6.1.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water ...................................................................................... 6-6
6.1.5.1 Recycled Water Coordination.......................................................................... 6-6
6.1.5.2 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal........................................... 6-7
6.1.5.3 Recycled Water System Description................................................................ 6-9
6.1.5.4 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses................................. 6-9
6.1.5.5 Actions to Encourage and Optimize Future Recycled Water Use ................. 6-11
6.1.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities.................................................................................... 6-11
6.1.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers....................................................................................... 6-12
6.1.7.1 Exchanges...................................................................................................... 6-12
6.1.7.2 Transfers........................................................................................................ 6-12
6.1.8 Future Water Projects...................................................................................................... 6-12
6.1.9 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water....................................................... 6-13
6.1.9.1 Description of Supplies.................................................................................. 6-14
6.1.9.2 Quantification of Supplies............................................................................. 6-14
6.1.10 Special Conditions............................................................................................................ 6-15
6.2 Energy Use ............................................................................................................................... 6-15 7 Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Water Service Reliability Assessment........................................................................................ 7-1
7.1.1 Service Reliability – Constraints on Water Sources........................................................... 7-1
7.1.1.1 Legal................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1.2 Environmental ................................................................................................. 7-2
7.1.1.3 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 7-2
7.1.1.4 Climatic Factors ............................................................................................... 7-2
7.1.2 Service Reliability – Year Type Characterization................................................................ 7-2
7.1.3 Service Reliability – Supply and Demand Comparison....................................................... 7-5
7.1.3.1 Water Service Reliability – Normal Year.......................................................... 7-5
7.1.3.2 Water Service Reliability – Single Dry Year...................................................... 7-5
7.1.3.3 Water Service Reliability – Five-Consecutive-Year Drought............................ 7-6
7.1.4 Description of Management Tools and Options................................................................ 7-8
7.2 Drought Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 7-8
7.2.1 DRA Data, Methods, and Basis for Water Shortage Conditions........................................ 7-9
7.2.2 DRA Water Source Reliability............................................................................................. 7-9
7.2.3 DRA Total Water Supply and Use Comparison .................................................................. 7-9 BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
iv
8 Water Shortage Contingency Plan..................................................................................................... 8-1 9 Demand Management Measures...................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers.................................................. 9-1
9.1.1 Water Waste Prohibition Ordinances................................................................................ 9-2
9.1.2 Metering............................................................................................................................. 9-2
9.1.3 Conservation Pricing .......................................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.4 Public Education and Outreach.......................................................................................... 9-3
9.1.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss....................................... 9-3
9.1.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support.................................... 9-4
9.1.7 Other Demand Management Measures............................................................................ 9-4
9.1.7.1 Residential Plumbing Retrofit.......................................................................... 9-4
9.1.7.2 Washing Machine Rebate................................................................................ 9-4
9.1.7.3 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Conservation Programs................. 9-4
9.1.7.4 Turf Replacement Initiative............................................................................. 9-4
9.2 Reporting Implementation ........................................................................................................ 9-5
9.2.1 Implementation over the Past Five Years.......................................................................... 9-5
9.2.2 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets ................................................................ 9-5 10 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation..............................................................................10-1
10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data ........................................................................................................10-1
10.2 Notice of Public Hearing ..........................................................................................................10-1
10.2.1 Notice to Cities and Counties...........................................................................................10-1
10.2.2 Notice to the Public..........................................................................................................10-2
10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ...................................................................................................10-3
10.3.1 Public Hearing ..................................................................................................................10-3
10.3.2 Adoption ..........................................................................................................................10-3
10.4 Plan Submittal..........................................................................................................................10-4
10.4.1 Submitting a UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR.............................10-4
10.4.2 Electronic Data Submittal ................................................................................................10-4
10.4.3 Submitting a UWMP, including WSCP, to the California State Library ............................10-4
10.4.4 Submitting a UWMP to Cities and Counties ....................................................................10-4
10.5 Public Availability .....................................................................................................................10-5
10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission .............................................................................10-5
10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan.....................................10-5
10.7.1 Amending a UWMP..........................................................................................................10-5
10.7.2 Amending a Water Shortage Contingency Plan...............................................................10-6 11 References.......................................................................................................................................11-1 BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 – Applicable Changes to the CWC Since 2015 ........................................................................... 1-3 Table 2-1 – Public Water Systems (DWR Table 2-1) .................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-2 – Plan Identification Type (DWR Table 2-2)............................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-3 – Supplier Identification (DWR Table 2-3) ................................................................................. 2-3 Table 2-4 – Water Supplier Information Exchange (DWR Table 2-4) ........................................................ 2-4 Table 2-5 – UWMP Coordination............................................................................................................... 2-5 Table 3-1 – City of Merced Climate Data ................................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-2 – Population – Current and Projected (DWR Table 3-1)............................................................ 3-6 Table 3-3 – Current and Projected Population by Category ...................................................................... 3-7 Table 4-1 – Past Water Use (2016-2019)................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-2 – Last Five Years of Water Loss Audit Reporting (DWR Table 4-4)............................................ 4-4 Table 4-3 – Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Actual (DWR Table 4-1).............................. 4-5 Table 4-4 – Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Projected (DWR Table 4-2).................................. 4-7 Table 4-5 – Total Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable) (DWR Table 4-3)............................................... 4-8 Table 4-6 – Characteristic Five-Year Water Use ........................................................................................ 4-9 Table 4-7 – City of Merced Lower Income Household Water Demands ................................................. 4-10 Table 4-8 – Inclusion in Water Use Projections (DWR Table 4‑5)............................................................ 4-10 Table 5-1 – Baselines and Targets Summary from SB X7-7 Verification Form (DWR Table 5-1)............... 5-1 Table 5-2 – 2020 Compliance (DWR Table 5-2) ......................................................................................... 5-3 Table 6-1 – Groundwater Volume Pumped (DWR Table 6-1).................................................................... 6-5 Table 6-2 – Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 (DWR Table 6-2) .................................... 6-8 Table 6-3 – Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020 (DWR Table 6-3)........... 6-8 Table 6-4 – Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area (DWR Table 6-4 R)........................................................................................................................................................ 6-10 Table 6-5 – 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual (DWR Table 6-5 R)... 6- 10 Table 6-6 – Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use (DWR Table 6-6)....................................... 6-11 Table 6-7 – Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Program (DWR Table 6-7)................................. 6-13 Table 6-8 – Water Supplies – Actual (DWR Table 6-8)............................................................................. 6-14 Table 6-9 – Water Supplies – Projected (DWR Table 6-9) ....................................................................... 6-15 Table 7-1 – Basis of Water Year Data (DWR Table 7-1) ............................................................................. 7-4 Table 7-2 – Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-2) ........................................... 7-5 Table 7-3 – Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-3) ....................................... 7-6 Table 7-4 – Multiple Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-4)................................... 7-7 Table 7-5 – Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables (DWR Table 7-5) ............................................... 7-10 Table 9-1 – Water Rate Schedule............................................................................................................... 9-3 Table 10-1 – Notification to Cities and Counties (DWR Table 10-1)........................................................10-2 BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 – Regional Location Map .......................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 – Service Area Map................................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3 – General Plan Land Use ........................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 6-1 – Groundwater Basins and Subbasins ...................................................................................... 6-4
APPENDICES
Appendix A – DWR UWMP Tables
Appendix B – DWR UWMP Checklist
Appendix C – Notice of Preparation and Outreach Documents Appendix D – Water Loss Audits
Appendix E – Planning Tool
Appendix F – SB X7-7 2015 Verification Form and 2020 Compliance Form Appendix G – Energy Use Tables
Appendix H – 2019 Consumer Confidence Report
Appendix I – Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Appendix J – Ordinance No. 2526, Water Conservation
Appendix K – Water Rate Schedule
Appendix L – UWMP Adoption Resolution
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2030 General Plan Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
AB Assembly Bill
AF Acre feet
AFY Acre feet per year
Black Water Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc.
BMP Best Management Practice
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional sector
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System City City of Merced
County Merced County
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CWC California Water Code
DMM Demand Management Measures
DOF California Department of Finance
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ETo Evapotranspiration
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpm gallons per minute
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HCF Hundred Cubic Feet
LAA Land Application Areas
Legislature State of California Legislature
MCAG Merced County Association of Governments
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MG Million gallons
mgd Million gallons per day
MID Merced Irrigation District
MIRWMP Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update MIUGSA Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA
MMC Merced Municipal Code
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
PCE Perchloroethylene
SB Senate Bill
SB X7-7 Water Conservation Bill of 2009
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SOI Sphere of influence
State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
SUDP Specific Urban Development Plan
SWTP Surface Water Treatment Plant
TCP 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
UC Merced University of California at Merced
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
viii
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMP Guidebook 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers UWMPA Urban Water Management Plan Act
Water Master Plan Water Master Plan Update
WMA Wildlife Management Area
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
1-1
1 UWMP Introduction and Lay Description
1.1 Background and Purpose
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10615:
“Plan” means an urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this part. A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities. The components of the plan may vary according to an individual community or area's characteristics and its capabilities to efficiently use and conserve water. The plan shall address measures for residential, commercial, governmental, and industrial water demand management as set forth in Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630) of Chapter 3. In addition, a strategy and time schedule for implementation shall be included in the plan.
The California Water Code (CWC) requires urban water suppliers within the state to prepare and adopt Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) for submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The UWMPs, which must be filed every five years, must satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) of 1983 including amendments that have been made to the Act and other applicable regulations. The UWMPA requires urban water suppliers servicing 3,000 or more connections or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually, to prepare an UWMP.
The purpose of the UWMP is to maintain efficient use of urban water supplies, continue to promote conservation programs and policies, ensure that sufficient water supplies are available for future beneficial use, and provide a mechanism for response during water drought conditions. This plan, which was prepared in compliance with the CWC, and as set forth in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers (May 2021) established by DWR (UWMP Guidebook), constitutes the City of Merced (City) 2020 UWMP. This 2020 UWMP was prepared in compliance with the UWMPA and the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (Senate Bill [SB] X7-7) by Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Black Water) and the City.
1.2 Previous Urban Water Management Plan
The City previously updated their 2015 UWMP in November 2017. Following adoption, the 2015 UWMP was submitted to and approved by DWR. This 2020 UWMP serves as an update to the 2015 UWMP and complies with all new UWMP requirements and regulations.
1.3 Urban Water Management Planning and the California Water Code This section summarizes the CWC sections that are applicable to UWMPs.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
1-2
1.3.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983
In 1983, State Assembly Bill (AB) 797 modified the CWC Division 6, by creating the UWMPA. Several amendments to the original UWMPA, which were introduced since 1983, have increased the data requirements and planning elements to be included in UWMPs. Initial amendments to the UWMPA required that total projected water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years, in 5-year increments. Recent DWR guidelines also suggest projecting through a 25-year planning horizon to maintain a 20-year timeframe until the next UWMP update has been completed. This is merely a guideline and not a requirement of the UWMPA. Therefore, the use of a 25-year planning horizon as opposed to a 20-year planning horizon is left up to the discretion of the agency. The City has opted to use a 20-year planning horizon for the purposes of this UWMP.
1.3.2 Applicable Changes to the Water Code since 2015 UWMPs Since the UWMPA was passed, the CWC has undergone significant expansion and revision since the 2015 UWMP was prepared. Prolonged droughts, groundwater overdraft, regulatory revisions, and changing climatic conditions not only affect each Supplier’s water reliability determinations, but also the broad picture of statewide water reliability overseen by DWR, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), and the State of California Legislature (Legislature). Accordingly, the UWMPA has grown to address changing conditions. Applicable changes to the CWC since the completion of the City’s 2015 UWMP are summarized in Table 1-1.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
1-3
Table 1-1 – Applicable Changes to the CWC Since 2015
Topic
CWC
Sections
Legislative
Bill Summary
Five Consecutive DryYear Water Reliability
Assessment
10635(a)
and (b)
SB 606, 2019 The Legislature modified the dry-year water reliability planning from a “multiyear” time
period to a “drought lasting five consecutive
water years” designation.
Drought Risk
Assessment
10635(b) SB 606, 2019 The Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) requires a Supplier to assess water supply reliability over
a five-year period from 2021 to 2025.
Seismic Risk 10632.5 SB 664, 2016 Requires the UWMP to address seismic risk to various water system facilities and have a
mitigation plan.
Energy Use 10631.2(a) SB 606, 2018 Requires Suppliers to include readily obtainable information on estimated amounts
of energy use for their water supply
extraction, treatment, distribution, storage,
conveyance, and other water uses.
Water Loss Reporting
for Five Years
10631(d) AB 1414,
2019
Requires inclusion of the past five years of
water loss audit reports in UWMPs.
Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
(WSCP)
10632 SB 606, 2019 Suppliers are required to prepare and adopt a WSCP.
Groundwater Supplies
Coordination
10631 AB 1414,
2019
Requires UWMPs to be consistent with
Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs)
Lay Description 10630.5 SB 606, 2019 Requires inclusion of a simple lay description of how much water the agency has on a
reliable basis, how much it needs for the
foreseeable future, what the agency’s strategy
is for meeting its water needs, the challenges
facing the agency, and any other information
necessary to provide a general understanding
of the agency’s plan.
1.4 UWMPs in Relation to Other Planning Efforts
The City is committed to providing a reliable and high-quality water supply to its customers. To ensure that the City will be able to continue to reliably serve the residents of Merced in the future, the City has conducted/participated in several important planning efforts that relate to water supply planning and are related to the UWMP. Some of the most recent water planning efforts are summarized below:
• Merced Vision 2030 General Plan: In January 2012, the City adopted an update to its General Plan that guides land use and development for the Merced Planning through the year 2030. The General Plan focuses on the preservation and enhancement of the existing community while guiding urban growth and allowing the continued development of the University of California, Merced (UC Merced).
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
1-4
• Water Master Plan Update (Water Master Plan): The City updated its Water Master Plan in 2017, which was previously developed in 2007. The Master Plan Update sets the foundation for the City to expand its water system to meet the needs of its growing population through the planning horizon of the General Plan.
• Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update: The Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update (MIRWMP) was a collaborative effort to identify water management issues, needs, objectives, actions, and priorities to meet the long-term water needs of the Merced Region.
• Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan: The Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was published in November 2019. The goal of the GSP is to bring the Merced Subbasin, which is a DWR-designated critically overdrafted basin, into sustainable groundwater management by 2040.
1.5 UWMP Organization
This 2020 UWMP contains the appropriate sections and tables required per CWC Division 6, Part 2.6 (Urban Water Management Planning Act) and has been prepared based on guidance provided by the DWR 2020 UWMP Guidebook. The required tables are included in the relevant sections and in Appendix A.
DWR’s UWMP Checklist, as provided in the DWR 2020 UWMP Guidebook, has been completed to demonstrate the UWMP’s compliance with applicable requirements. A copy of the completed checklist is included in Appendix B. This plan is organized according to the recommended format provided in the DWR’s 2020 UWMP Guidebook. The UWMP contains ten chapters, followed by appendices that provide supporting documentation for the information presented in the plan. The chapters are outlined below:
• Chapter 1 - UWMP Introduction and Lay Description: This chapter provides background information for the 2020 UWMP and provides a description of the purpose of the plan. • Chapter 2 - Plan Preparation: This chapter includes information on the development of the 2020 UWMP and efforts in coordination and outreach.
• Chapter 3 - System Description: This chapter describes the service area, population, and climate; presents an overview of the City’s water distribution system; and describes the City's organizational structure and history.
• Chapter 4 - Water Use Characterization: This chapter describes and quantifies the current and projected water uses within the City’s service area.
• Chapter 5 - SB X7-7 Baseline and Targets, and 2020 Compliance: This chapter describes the methods for calculating baseline and target water use consumption in the City. It also includes a calculation of the City’s 2020 water use and determination of compliance with the 2020 target water use.
• Chapter 6 - Water Supply Characterization: This chapter describes the current and projected sources of water available to the City. A description of potential recycled water use and supply availability is also included in this chapter.
• Chapter 7 - Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment: This chapter describes the reliability of the City’s current supply and evaluates the reliability 20 years out, including normal, single-dry years, and five consecutive dry years.
• Chapter 8 - Water Shortage Contingency Plan: This chapter references the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) which is provided as an appendix.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
1-5
• Chapter 9 - Demand Management Measures: This chapter describes the City's efforts to promote conservation, reduce water demand, and describes the City's demand management measures. • Chapter 10 - Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation: This chapter describes the steps taken to adopt and submit the 2020 UWMP and make it publicly available. This chapter will also describe the City's plan to implement the UWMP.
1.6 Lay Description
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10630.5:
Each plan shall include a simple lay description of how much water the agency has on a reliable basis, how much it needs for the foreseeable future, what the agency’s strategy is for meeting its water needs, the challenges facing the agency, and any other information necessary to provide a general understanding of the agency’s plan.
The UWMP describes the City’s water system, characterizes water use, describes the water supply sources for the City, and analyzes the reliability of the City’s water service for normal, dry, and 5-year drought conditions for the next twenty years. To further improve the reliability of the City’s water system, the WSCP identifies strategies to implement during water shortages and describes procedures for identifying the potential of a water shortage in the current year.
The City water system has 20 groundwater wells with a total well capacity of 54,400 gpm. In 2020, the City supplied 20,076 AF of potable water and 4,050 AF of recycled water. Potable water demands are projected to increase to 31,825 AF by 2040 due to increases in the City and UC Merced population. The City’s water supply is projected to sufficiently meet expected demands through 2040 through the installation of additional groundwater wells and construction of a 10 million gallon per day (mgd) surface water treatment plant (SWTP). The SWTP is projected to use surface water supplied by Merced Irrigation District (MID) and begin operation by 2030.
The Merced groundwater basin, which is currently the City’s only water source, is a high priority basin and is critically overdrafted. The addition of surface water to the City’s water portfolio, continued implementation of water conservation measures, and participation in regional activities to address the sustainable management of the groundwater basin, are critical components for the long-term reliability of the City’s water system.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
2-1
2 Plan Preparation
This chapter presents information on the development of the 2020 UWMP, including coordination and outreach efforts.
2.1 Basis for Preparing a Plan
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10617:
“Urban water supplier” means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. An urban water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right, which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers. This part applies only to water supplied from public water systems.
CWC Section 10620:
(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.
CWC Section 10621:
(a) Each urban water supplier shall update its plan at least once every five years on or before July 1, in years ending in six and one, incorporating updated and new information from the five years preceding each update.
2.1.1 Public Water Systems
The CWC defines an urban water supplier as “a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that directly provides potable municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or supplies more than 3,000 acrefeet (AF) of potable water annually at retail for municipal purposes.” Table 2-1 (DWR Table 2-1) documents the number of municipal connections and the volume of water supplied in 2020. The City is considered an urban retail water supplier.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
2-2
Table 2-1 – Public Water Systems (DWR Table 2-1)
2.2 Individual Planning and Compliance
Water agencies are given the option to develop UWMPs individually or collectively as a regional group.
While efforts to prepare the UWMP were coordinated with appropriate agencies, this UWMP was developed for the City service area only, and the City is not participating in a Regional UWMP (Table 2-2).
Table 2-2 – Plan Identification Type (DWR Table 2-2)
Public Water System
Number
Public Water System
Name
Number of Municipal
Connections 2020
Volume of
Water Supplied
2020 *
CA2410009 Merced, City of 22,969 20,076
22,969 20,076
Submittal Table 2-1 Retail Only: Public Water Systems
NOTES:
TOTAL
Add additional rows as needed
* Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Table 2-3.
Water Supplier is also a
member of a RUWMP
Water Supplier is also a
member of a Regional Alliance
Regional Urban Water Management
Plan (RUWMP)
Submittal Table 2-2: Plan Identification
NOTES:
Individual UWMP
Name of RUWMP or Regional Alliance
if applicable
(select from drop down list)
Select
Only
One
Type of Plan
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
□
□
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
2-3
2.3 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10608.20:
(a)(1) Urban retail water suppliers…may determine the targets on a fiscal year or calendar year basis.
The City’s 2020 UWMP has been prepared on a calendar year basis and includes planning data for the complete year of 2020. The City’s reporting of water volumes in this 2020 UWMP is reported in acre feet (AF). Table 2-3 summarizes the City’s reporting methods for this 2020 UWMP.
Table 2-3 – Supplier Identification (DWR Table 2-3)
Supplier is a wholesaler
Supplier is a retailer
UWMP Tables are in calendar years
UWMP Tables are in fiscal years
Unit AF
NOTES:
Submittal Table 2-3: Supplier Identification
Type of Supplier (select one or both)
Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one)
If using fiscal years provide month and date that the
fiscal year begins (mm/dd)
Units of measure used in UWMP *
(select from drop down)
* Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Table 2-3.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
□
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
2-4
2.4 Coordination and Outreach
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631:
(h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).
The UWMPA requires that the UWMP identify the water agency’s coordination with appropriate nearby agencies. While preparing the 2020 UWMP, the City coordinated its efforts with relevant agencies to ensure that the data and issues are presented accurately.
2.4.1 Wholesale and Retail Coordination
The City does not receive wholesale water, nor does it plan to in the future (Table 2-4).
Table 2-4 – Water Supplier Information Exchange (DWR Table 2-4) Submittal Table 2-4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange The retail Supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use in accordance with Water Code Section 10631.
Wholesale Water Supplier Name
Add additional rows as needed
N/A
NOTES:
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
2-5
2.4.2 Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10620:
(d)(3) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.
CWC Section 10642:
Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan...
The City solicited participation from other agencies and organizations for the preparation of the 2020 UWMP. Table 2-5 summarizes how the UWMP preparation was coordinated.
Table 2-5 – UWMP Coordination
Coordinating Agencies
Participated in Developing the PlanCommented on the DraftAttended Public MeetingsWas Contacted for AssistanceWas Sent a Copy of the Draft PlanWas Sent a Notice of Intention to AdoptNot Involved/ No Information Merced Irrigation
District (MID)
University of California
Merced (UC Merced)
County of Merced
(County)
Merced County
Association of
Governments (MCAG)
Merced City School
District
State of California
Department of Water
Resources
Merced Union High
School District
General Public
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
2-6
2.4.3 Notice to Cities and Counties
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10621(b):
Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at least 60 days before the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
The City also provided formal written notification to Merced County, MID, and other appropriate agencies, that the City’s UWMP was being updated. In accordance with the UWMPA, this notification was provided at least 60 days prior to the public hearing of the plan. Electronic copies of the final UWMP will be provided to these agencies no later than 30 days after its submission to the DWR. Appendix C contains copies of the outreach documents.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
3-1
3 System Description
The UWMPA requires that the UWMP include a description of the water purveyor’s service area and various aspects of the area served including climate, population, and other demographic factors. Unless otherwise noted, this UWMP uses the term “service area” to refer to the areas which the City provides potable water service.
3.1 General Description
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.
The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in fiveyear increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The description shall include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information, including, where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or regional land use authorities, as developed pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
The City is situated in the midst of the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley and borders State Route 99, with Highways 140 and 59 also serving as principal access points to the City. Since its incorporation in 1889, Merced has been recognized as the “Gateway to Yosemite.” Dedicated to promoting planned growth while preserving much of its small-town appeal, the City maintains the largest population within Merced County (County). Completion of UC Merced in 2005 created a significant economic opportunity for the City and the local economy. The City's economic base consists of education, public services, retail sales, and light industrial. Merced is the regional hub for education, culture, and business. The community offers abundant shopping and affordable housing in comparison to other California locations. Figure 3-1 provides a regional location map for the City.
The San Joaquin Valley’s regional geography is characterized by flat plains, with the City having an average elevation of approximately 171 feet above mean sea level. The City has a long history of agriculture land use. However, agriculture has given way to residential housing and other aspects of urbanization.
The City operates under a Council-Manager form of government. City residents elect a seven-member City Council to serve as the City's legislative and governing body. The City Council provides policy direction to the City Manager, who is responsible for administering City operations. The City's Public Works Department is responsible for many public services within the City, including water service, sewer service, storm drainage, wastewater treatment plant, recycled water service, refuse, streets, parks, street lighting and signals, and fleet maintenance.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
3-2
The City’s Public Works Department is the only municipal water purveyor in the City and provides service to an estimated total population of 99,100 residents (as of the year 2020), including UC Merced.
3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps
There are three basic boundaries which define the City in relation to the surrounding area. These boundaries include the City limits, the Specific Urban Development Plan (SUDP) boundary, and Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City limits currently encompasses 23.1 square miles. The City’s SOI is also the City’s SUDP boundary and covers 44.7 square miles.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the boundary of the City’s water service area, SOI, and SUDP boundary. The City’s water service area is considered the areas to which the City provides potable water service such as the water consumers within the City limits, the UC Merced campus, and some small County islands outside the City limits. Figure 3-2 will also be submitted to DWR in ArcGIS format with the 2020 UWMP.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
3-3
Figure 3-1 – Regional Location Map
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Mer ed
- Neighboring Cities
-- Major Highways
-- Major Roads
D County Boundaries
••-==•••-Miles
0 Livington
I
Los Banos
8 Atwater
Ill
Dos Palos
I
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
¥140
¥99
¥59
¥140
¥
59 Bellevue Rd
Belcher Ave
Dickenson Ferry Rd Mission Ave
Olive Ave
Sante Fe Dr
Lake Rd
Arboleda Dr
Legend
Major Highways
General Plan Boundary
City Limits
Merced Water Service Area
Parcels
O
0 0.45 0.9 1.8
Miles
FIGURE 3-2
CITY OF MERCED
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WATER SERVICE AREA
.- --~
·---. I I ---- ·---- CJ
CJ
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
3-5
3.3 Service Area Climate
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(a):
A plan shall… Describe the service area of the supplier, including … climate… CWC Section 10630:
It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning… while accounting for impacts of climate change.
The City of Merced has a Mediterranean climate. Summers are hot and dry while winters are cold and wet, with an annual average precipitation of approximately 12.2 inches. Most of the annual precipitation occurs between November and April. The local annual average maximum daily temperature is 75.7 degrees F° and the annual average minimum daily temperature is 45.7 degrees F°. Table 3-1 summarizes monthly average evapotranspiration (ETo) rates, rainfall, and temperature. ETo is the water lost through evaporation from the soil and surface water bodies, combined with plant transpiration. Local data was obtained from California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Station #148, located near East Olive Avenue and North Orchard Drive, east of the City limits.
Table 3-1 – City of Merced Climate Data
Average ETo
Average Max
Temperature
Average Min
Temperature Average Rainfall
Month inches (a) °F (b) °F (b) inches (b)
January 1.27 56.5 34.7 2.16
February 2 62 36.6 2.11
March 3.64 67.7 40.3 1.82
April 5 72.7 43.9 1.41
May 6.93 81.3 49.5 0.48
June 7.97 89.4 55.1 0.13
July 8.48 94.9 59.2 0.01
August 7.61 93.3 57.6 0
September 5.58 89.2 53.3 0.07
October 3.6 79.1 45.5 0.62
November 1.79 66 38 1.24
December 1.08 56.6 34.4 2.15
Total 54.95 75.7 45.7 12.2
(a) Source: CIMIS Website: wwwcimis.water.ca.gov, Station 148 Merced, California, Monthly Average ETo Report, Printed March 2021.
(b) Source: CIMIS Website: wwwcimis.water.ca.gov, Station 148 Merced, California, Monthly Average Report, January 2000 – December 2020.
These climate characteristics highly influence the City’s water use. As described in Chapter 4, the City’s water use in the summer months is significantly higher than that in the winter, reflecting increased water use for irrigation purposes during the hot, dry summers.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
3-6
3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics
3.4.1 Service Area Population
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(a):
Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population …The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.
According to California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit Report E-4, the City’s population for the year 2020 was 88,120. UC Merced’s student, faculty, and staff population for 2020 was estimated at 10,980 by the University of California Merced 2020 Long-Range Development Plan [1]. The future of growth for the City will be linked to the continuing expansion of the university and a connection to the state’s proposed future high-speed rail system. Upon completion, the new rail system will link the City to major metropolitan areas in both the northern and southern portions of the state. Table 3-2 (DWR Table 3-1)shows the existing and forecasted population for the service area, which will be used to forecast water requirements for the City. Table 3-3 shows the existing and forecasted population for the City and UC Merced separated. The forecasted population for the City is based on the Merced County Forecast Summary [2]. The forecasted population for UC Merced is based on the University of California Merced 2020 Long-Range Development Plan [1], UC Merced 2020 Long Range Development Plan Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report [3], and UC Merced Tomorrow Long Range Development Plan [4]. UC Merced is projected to be fully developed by 2045.
Table 3-2 – Population – Current and Projected (DWR Table 3-1) BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Submittal Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected Population 202.0 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045(opt)
Served 99,,100 109,866 120,363 130,461 14.3,194 155,816 NOTES: Includes IJC M eroed.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
3-7
Table 3-3 – Current and Projected Population by Category
3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including… other social, economic and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.
The City’s median household income is $45,232, and the poverty rate is 29.3%. The median age in the City is 29.4 years old, significantly lower than the United States’ median age of 38.1. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, over a third of the population in Merced speaks Spanish, and nearly half of the population speaks a language other than English at home. 72.9% of the population has attained a high school diploma.
In 2020, approximately 11% of the service area population was comprised of the UC Merced population. 89% of students attending UC Merced are under the age of 25, and most attendees are full-time students.
Less than one percent of students are from out of state or a foreign country. Over half of the student population is Hispanic, and the campus ranks high on racial diversity.
3.5 Land Uses within Service Area
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(a):
The description shall include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information, including, where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or regional land use authorities…
Population
Served 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045(opt)
City of
Merced 88,120 95,670 102,952 109,986 116,864 123,631
UC Merced 10,980 14,196 17,411 20,475 26,330 32,185
Total 99,100 109,866 120,363 130,461 143,194 155,816
Submittal Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected NOTES: (1) Service area population is defined as the population served by the distribution system. (2) Source: 2020 City of Merced population based on DOF data. Year 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045 population projections for the City are from the Merced County Forecast Summary, July 7, 2016. (3) Source: 2020 and 2030 UC Merced population from UC Merced 2020 LongRange Development Plan, March 2020. (4) Source: 2035 UC Merced population from UC Merced 2020 Long Range Development Plan Recirculated Draft SEIR, December 2019. (5) UC Merced assumed to be fully developed by 2045. Full development population from UC Merced Tomorrow Long Range Development Plan, Amended April 2017. (6) UC Merced 2040 population estimated using straight line growth assumption for 2035-2045.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
3-8
The City is predominantly comprised of single-family residential land use with commercial, industrial, parks/open space/public uses, and multi-family residential land uses comprising the remaining areas. On January 3, 2012, the City Council adopted the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan (2030 General Plan) [5].
The 2030 General Plan serves as a blueprint for growth and development in the City. Figure 3-3 shows the 2030 General Plan land use diagram.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
•
I
(
,,,......__./ /
I
!
I
) ,/
I
i i I i I I
I I
I -------~~ I I I I
i N
i ____________ ,viA E
y
I I s r
0 0.5 1 1 1.5 2
--- Mile-s -
--~ --
---1
1'
,_
I
I
I
Legend
Merced City Limit
el S01/SUDP
0 Area of Interest
# # , ,
, ,
, ,---. #
I ## 1 __ ,
Bellevue Community Plan Area
7 i
I
I
Ii =-4----1
I . i ~7 i
Merced City General Plan "' INDUSTRIAL RESERVE
,,. BUSINESS PARK ~ AGRICULTURAL
,~"' BUSINESS PARK RESERVE .. OPEN SPACE· PARK RECREATION THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ~ FUTURE PARK
., " COMMERCIAL RESERVE ~ VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL
~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
,,. REGIONAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ~ LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ~ HIGH TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OFFICE ~ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL RURAL RESIDENTIAL
FUTURE SCHOOL q MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENTIAL
~ PUBLIC/GENERAL USE , ' ', RESIDENTIAL RESERVE
~ MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-1
4 Water Use Characterization
This chapter describes and quantifies the current and projected water demands within the City’s service area.
4.1 Non-Potable versus Potable Water Use
This chapter addresses demands that are met by potable water sources. Recycled water use is described separately in Chapter 6. The City does not use other non-potable water sources.
4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10635:
(a) Every urban water Supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years.
This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
CWC Section 10631(d):
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following… (2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a). (4)(A) Water use projections, where available, shall display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area. (B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following: (i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections. (ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact.
The following sections describe past, current, and projected water use within the City for each of the ten water use sectors identified in CWC Section 10631(d).
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-2
4.2.1 Water Use Sectors Listed in Water Code
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(d):
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following:
(A) Single-family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof.
(I) Agricultural.
(J) Distribution system water loss.
The water use sectors that are served by the water system include single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and landscape irrigation. These classifications were used to analyze current consumption patterns. These classifications are defined by the DWR 2020 UWMP Guidebook and City as follows:
• Single-family residential – A single-family dwelling unit. A lot with a free-standing building containing one dwelling unit that may include an accessory dwelling unit. • Multi-family residential – Multiple dwelling units contained within one building or several buildings within one complex.
• Commercial – A water user that provides or distributes a product or service. • Landscape – Water connections supplying water solely for landscape irrigation. • Distribution System Water Losses – Water losses which occur due to distribution system leaks and other unmetered water uses (such as firefighting, main flushing, etc.).
4.2.2 Water Use Sectors in Addition to Those Listed in Water Code The water system does not serve additional water use sectors.
4.2.3 Past Water Use
The City’s past water use for 2016-2019 is shown in Table 4-1.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-3
Table 4-1 – Past Water Use (2016-2019)
Water Use (AF)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 2016 897 888 978 1,172 1,554 2,078 2,311 2,296 1,996 1,590 1,075 976 17,811 2017 914 821 1,039 1,125 1,816 2,074 2,417 2,336 2,040 1,791 1,229 1,090 18,692 2018 1,002 1,008 1,043 1,259 1,869 2,207 2,536 2,403 2,102 1,746 1,352 960 19,487 2019 919 824 926 1,345 1,673 2,078 2,381 2,420 2,085 1,819 1,449 1,012 18,931
4.2.4 Distribution System Water Loss
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(d)(1):
For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following… (J) Distribution system water loss….
CWC Section 10631(d)(3):
(A) The distribution system water loss shall be quantified for each of the five years preceding the plan update, in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to Section 10608.34. (B) The distribution system water loss quantification shall be reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or developed by the department through a public process. The water loss quantification worksheet shall be based on the water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association.
(C) In the plan due July 1, 2021, and in each update thereafter, data shall be included to show whether the urban retail water supplier met the distribution loss standards enacted by the board pursuant to Section 10608.34.
The last five years of water loss audit reporting are summarized in Table 4-2 (DWR Table 4-4). The water loss audits for 2016-2019 are in Appendix D.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-4
Table 4-2 – Last Five Years of Water Loss Audit Reporting (DWR Table 4-4) CWC Section 10608.34(i) directs the State Water Board to “adopt rules requiring urban retail water suppliers to meet performance standards for the volume of water losses.” The proposed regulation would require urban water suppliers to meet individual volumetric water loss standards determined through a water system-specific economic model developed by the State Water Board. Pursuant to this law, urban retail water suppliers, such as the City, have annually submitted water loss audits to DWR since October 2017. Pre-rulemaking meetings and workshops were held in 2018-2020 and adoption of the proposed regulation is anticipated to occur in 2021. Once the economic model is finalized, the City can determine their individual volumetric water loss standard.
4.2.5 Current Water Use
Table 4-3 (DWR Table 4-1) shows potable water use for 2020 by water use type.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENG INEERS, INC.
Submittal Table 4-4 Retail: Last Five Years of Water Loss Audit Reporting
Reporting Period St art Dat e
(mm/yyyy)
01/2020
01/201'9
01/201.8
01/2017
01/2016
Volume of Wat er Loss 1,2
1350
12'90
700
1740
13.80 NOlES: Volume of Water Loss for 20 20 w as est imat ed based o n w at er suppl"ed and billed meter dat a and has not been audit ed.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-5
Table 4-3 – Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Actual (DWR Table 4-1) BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGIN EERS, INC.
Submittal Table 4-1 Retail: Demands for Potable and Non-Potable Water -Actual Use Type 2020 Actual
Drop down list
May · se e nmes
se , t vii be
w ata oni
Singl,e Famil'y
Mul1H amily
Commei;cial
h dust rial
Landscap,e
Add i ional Descri p ion
(as needed)
Level of Treatmen
When Delivered
Dropdow n liS:
Drinking W a ;er
Drinking Water
Drinking W a er
Drinking W a ,er
Drinking W a ,er
Drinkin W a ,er
TOTAL
Volume*
10,30 3
3, 257
3,041
4 11
1,664
1,400
20,076
(DWR Table 4-4- }. Volume of losses in d ues an addit ional 50 AF fo r unbilled, unm,e ,er,ed com ump ion (,equivale,n o 2.5% of wa ,er production), ,es ima ,ed using h,e me .h odology ind uding in he AWWA Wat,er Audi Software.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-6
4.2.6 Projected Water Use
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10635 (a):
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years.
This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
Water Code Section 10631:
(h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available… The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).
CWC Section 10631(d)(4):
(A) Water use projections, where available, shall display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area. (B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following:
(i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections.
(ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact.
Table 4-4 (DWR Table 4-2) summarizes the projected water use by use type for 2025 through 2040. The water use in Table 4-4 (DWR Table 4-2) was calculated using the following assumptions:
• 2020 Target SB X7-7 of 248 gallons per capita per day, further described in Chapter 5 • Population projections presented in Table 3-2 (DWR Table 3-1) • Percentage water use by use type for future years was the same as for 2020 • 20 percent reduction in per capita water use due to implementation of Stage 2 Shortage Responses Actions. Refer to the WSCP. Stage 2 Shortage Response Actions are anticipated to apply to future years due to the overdraft condition of the Merced groundwater basin.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-7
The projections are conservative and do not consider potential water use reductions from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans.
Table 4-4 – Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Projected (DWR Table 4-2) Table 4-5 (DWR Table 4-3)summarizes the total projected potable and non-potable water use in five-year increments from 2020 to 2040. The table includes recycled water demand, which will be further described in Chapter 6.
Use Type
Drop down list
May select each use multiple times
These are the only Use Types that will be recognized by the WUEdata online submittal tool
2025 2030 2035 2040
2045
(opt)
Single Family 12,531 13,729 14,880 16,333
Multi-Family 3,961 4,340 4,704 5,163
Commercial 3,699 4,052 4,392 4,821
Industrial 500 548 594 652
Landscape 2,024 2,217 2,403 2,638
Losses 1,703 1,865 2,022 2,219
24,418 26,751 28,995 31,825 0
NOTES: Projected water use based on population projections from Table 3-1, and an assumed water demand of 248 gpcd, equivalent to the SB X7-7 2020 Target. An additional 20 percent reduction in demand due to implementation of Stage 2 Shortage Response Actions were included. Projected water uses for each use type were proportionally increased based on their percentage of the total water use for 2020.
TOTAL
Add additional rows as needed
* Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Table 2-3.
Projected Water Use*
Report To the Extent that Records are Available
Submittal Table 4-2 Retail: Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Projected Additional Description
(as needed)
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-8
Table 4-5 – Total Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable) (DWR Table 4-3)
4.2.7 Characteristic Five-Year Water Use
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10635(b):
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service to its customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to this drought risk assessment within the five-year cycle of its urban water management plan update. The drought risk assessment shall include each of the following… (3) A comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. [Emphasis added] (4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria.
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
2045
(opt)
Potable Water, Raw, Other
Non-potable
From Tables 4-1R and 4-2 R
20,076 24,418 26,751 28,995 31,825 0
Recycled Water Demand1
From Table 6-4
0 0 0 0 0 0
Optional Deduction of
Recycled Water Put Into
Long-Term Storage2
TOTAL WATER USE 20,076 24,418 26,751 28,995 31,825 0
Submittal Table 4-3 Retail: Total Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable) NOTES:
1Recycled water demand fields will be blank until Table 6-4 is complete 2 Long term storage means water placed into groundwater or surface storage that is not removed from storage in the same year. Supplier may deduct recycled water placed in longterm storage from their reported demand. This value is manually entered into Table 4-3.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-9
The characteristic five-year water use for the City was calculated using the Planning Tool Use Worksheet provided by the California Department of Water Resources (Appendix E). This information will be useful for preparing the five-year Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) in Chapter 7. Table 4-6 shows the summarized characteristic five-year water use. The projections assume a straight-line population growth between 2020 and 2025 and a water demand of 198 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The per capita water demand is based on an unconstrained water demand of 248 gpcd, equivalent to the SB X7-7 2020 target water demand shown in Table 5-1 (DWR Table 5-1). A 20-percent reduction due to implementation of Stage 2 shortage response actions described in the Water Conservation Ordinance and WSCP is included in the projections.
Table 4-6 – Characteristic Five-Year Water Use
Year
Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Per capita water use, gpcd a 248 248 248 248 248
Population b 101,253 103,406 105,560 107,713 109,866
Total unconstrained water use, AF 28,130 28,728 29,326 29,924 30,522 Reduction due to Shortage Level 2 measures c -5,626 -5,746 -5,865 -5,985 -6,104 Total projected water use, AF 22,504 22,982 23,461 23,939 24,418 a Assumes an unconstrained water demand of 248 gpcd, equivalent to the SB X7-7 2020 target demand from Table 5-1 (DWR Table 5-1) b Projections assume a straight line increase in population from the 2020 and 2025 population data presented in Table 3-2 (DWR Table 3-1). c
Reduction due to Shortage Level 2 measures assumed to be 20%.
4.3 Water Use for Lower Income Households
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631.1:
(a) The water use projections required by Section 10631 shall include projected water use for singlefamily and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier.
California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 (a):
“Lower income households” means persons and families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families… In the event the federal standards are discontinued, the department shall, by regulation, establish income limits for lower income households for all geographic areas of the state at 80 percent of area median income, adjusted for family size and revised annually.
As described above, the UWMP is required to account for lower income household water demands. Lower income households are defined as families with an income less than 80 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family size. U.S. Census data from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates report an average of 3.2 persons per household and approximately 9,967 lower income households within the City, equating to an estimated 31,894 residents. Projected water demands BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-10
associated with lower income residential water users through year 2040 are presented in Table 4-7. The projections assume the proportion of lower income residents to total residents remains constant and per capita water demands of 181 for 2020 and 198 gpcd for 2025 and beyond.
Table 4-7 – City of Merced Lower Income Household Water Demands a Total water use is from Table 4-4 (DWR Table 4-2). b Total population is from Table 3-2 (DWR Table 3-1). c Lower income population data for 2020 is based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year estimates for median household income, household income distribution, and persons per household. Projected lower income population to total population was assumed to be the same as for 2020.
As shown in Table 4-8 (DWR Table 4-5), lower income demand projections presented in Table 4-7 are included in the total water use projections provided in Table 4-5.
Table 4-8 – Inclusion in Water Use Projections (DWR Table 4‑5) Description 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total water use, AF a 20,076 24,418 26,751 28,995 31,825 Total population b 99,100 109,866 120,363 130,461 143,194 Low-income population c 31,894 35,359 38,737 41,987 46,085 Low-income water demand, AF 6,461 6,927 7,589 8,225 9,028 Year
Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections?
(Refer to Appendix K of UWMP Guidebook)
Drop down list (y/n) Yes
If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, or otherwise are utilized in demand projections are found.
Stage 2 Shortage
Response Actions per
the WSCP and Water
Conservation
Ordinance
Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Drop down list (y/n)
Yes
Submittal Table 4-5 Retail Only: Inclusion in Water Use Projections NOTES:
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
4-11
4.4 Climate Change Considerations
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10630:
It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning commensurate with the numbers of customers served and the volume of water supplied, while accounting for impacts from climate change.
CWC Section 10635(b):
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service to its customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to this drought risk assessment within the five-year cycle of its urban water management plan update. The drought risk assessment shall include each of the following… (4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria.
The 2018 Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update, adopted in February 2019 [6] (MIRWMP), addressed adaptation to the effects of climate change and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Potential effects of climate change in the region of the City may include warmer temperatures, an increase in the uncertainty of future precipitation conditions, increases in extreme precipitation events, and increased wildfire frequency and severity. According to climate scientists, increases in global greenhouse gas levels are changing climate patterns around the world and, it is speculated, may begin to change at an accelerated pace from what has occurred in the past. An accelerated rate of change could potentially result in impacts to the local climate of the City in the form of higher temperatures, increased droughts and floods, decreased snowpack amounts and durations and other extreme variations in weather.
Previous City documents, such as the City’s Climate Action Plan, adopted in August 2012 and the MIRWMP identified several resource management strategies to mitigate potential impacts on water supply on reliability. The resource management strategies include:
• Reducing water demand
• Improving operational efficiency and transfers
• Increasing water supply through implementation of conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies as well as through groundwater storage, recycled water use, and increased surface water storage, as appropriate
• Improving water quality
• Improving flood management
• Practicing resource stewardship
• Public outreach
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
5-1
5 SB X7-7 Baselines, Targets, and 2020 Compliance
With the adoption of the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as the SB X7-7, the State of California was required to reduce urban per capita water use by 20 percent by the year 2020 (i.e., “20 by 2020”). CWC Section 10608.16(a) states: “The state shall achieve a 20-percent reduction in urban per capita water use in California on or before December 31, 2020.” To achieve this statewide objective, the California Legislature required each urban retail water supplier (Retail Supplier) subject to the UWMPA to develop an urban water use target to help the state collectively achieve a 20-percent reduction.
This chapter provides a description of the methodology used to calculate the City’s compliance with SB X7-7 requirements. The SB X7-7 Verification Form from the 2015 UWMP and the SB X7-7 Compliance Form are included in Appendix F.
5.1 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMPs
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10608.20 (g):
(g) An urban retail water supplier may update its 2020 urban water use target in its 2015 urban water management plan required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
The City calculated their SB X7-7 baselines and targets in their 2015 UWMP and did not have a situation, such as a change to the service area or customer base, to warrant recalculation of the baselines and targets. Table 5-1 (DWR Table 5-1) summarizes the SB X7-7 baseline and confirmed 2020 target from the SB X7-7 Verification Form.
Table 5-1 – Baselines and Targets Summary from SB X7-7 Verification Form (DWR Table 5-1) 10-15
year
1996 2005 310
5 Year 2003 2007 282
Submittal Table 5-1 Baselines and Targets Summary
From SB X7-7 Verification Form
Retail Supplier or Regional Alliance Only
*All cells in this table should be populated manually from the supplier's SBX7-7 Verification Form and reported in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)
NOTES:
248
Baseline
Period Start Year * End Year *
Average
Baseline
GPCD*
Confirmed
2020 Target*
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
5-2
5.2 Methods for Calculating Population and Gross Water Use This section describes the methods used for calculating population and gross water use for determining 2020 compliance with the SB X7-7 target.
5.2.1 Service Area Population
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10608.20(e):
An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management plan due in 2010…the baseline per capita water use…along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.
(f) When calculating per capita values for the purposes of this chapter, an urban retail water supplier shall determine population using federal, state, and local population reports and projections.
CWC Section 10644:
(a)(2) The plan…shall include any standardized forms, tables or displays specified by the department.
To calculate the compliance year gpcd, the population served in 2020 was estimated using DOF Demographic Research Unit Report E-4 data and data from UC Merced planning documents [1, 3, 4]. U.S.
Census 2020 decennial data was not available in time for completion of the 2020 UWMP. The service area boundaries for the City water system correspond by 95 percent or more with the boundaries of the City and, therefore, the DOF data for the City could be used for the service area population according to the 2020 DWR Guidebook. The service area population for 2020 is estimated as 99,100, as shown in Table 3- 2 (DWR Table 3-1).
5.3 Gross Water Use
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10608.12:
(g) “Gross Water Use” means the total volume of water, whether treated or untreated, entering the distribution system of an urban retail water supplier, excluding all of the following:
(1) Recycled water that is delivered within the service area of an urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water supplier
(2) The net volume of water that the urban retail water supplier places into long term storage (3) The volume of water the urban retail water supplier conveys for use by another urban water supplier (4) The volume of water delivered for agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (f) of Section 10608.24.
California Code of Regulations Title 23 Division 2 Chapter 5.1 Article Section 596 (a):
An urban retail water supplier that has a substantial percentage of industrial water use in its service area is eligible to exclude the process water use of existing industrial water customers from the calculation of its gross water use to avoid a disproportionate burden on another customer sector.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
5-3
Gross water use is defined as the measurable amount of water that enters the distribution system over a 12-month period, minus allowable exclusions. The gross water use for 2020 was 20,076 AF, as reported in Table 4-3 (DWR Table 4-1) and SB X7-7 Table 4 of the SB X7-7 2020 Compliance Form provided in Appendix F.
5.4 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use (GPCD)
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10608.12:
(f) “Compliance daily per-capita water use” means the gross water use during the final year of the reporting period…
CWC Section 10608.20:
(e) An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management plan due in 2010 . . . compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data.
The City has calculated its actual 2020 water use for the 2020 calendar year in accordance with Methodology 3 of DWR’s Methodologies document. As shown in Table 5-2 (DWR Table 5-2), per capita water use in 2020 was 181 gpcd, which is below the 2020 target of 248 gpcd.
Table 5-2 – 2020 Compliance (DWR Table 5-2)
As detailed in CWC Section 10608.4, there are allowable adjustments that can be made to an agency’s gross water use in 2020 for differences in evapotranspiration and rainfall, substantial changes to commercial or industrial water use, and/or substantial changes to institutional water use. However, because the City’s per capita water use is in compliance, the City did not elect to include the allowable adjustments.
Actual
2020 GPCD*
2020 TOTAL
Adjustments*
Adjusted 2020
GPCD*
(Adjusted if
applicable)
181 0 181 248 Yes
NOTES:
2020
Confirmed
Target GPCD*
Did Supplier
Achieve
Targeted
Reduction for
2020? Y/N
2020 GPCD
Submittal Table 5-2: 2020 Compliance
From SB X7-7 2020 Compliance Form
Retail Supplier or Regional Alliance Only
*All cells in this table should be populated manually from the supplier's SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form and reported in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
5-4
5.5 Regional Alliance
The City has chosen to comply with the requirements of SB X7-7 on an individual basis and is, therefore, not a participant in a regional alliance for SB X7-7 compliance.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-1
6 Water Supply Characterization
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(b):
Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), providing supporting and related information, including all of the following:
(1) A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment. For each source of water supply, consider any information pertinent to the reliability analysis conducted pursuant to Section 10635, including changes in supply due to climate change.
(2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, a description of the management of each supply in correlation with the other identified supplies. (3) For any planned sources of water supply, a description of the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies.
CWC 10631 (h):
An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).
The UWMPA requires that the UWMP include a description of the agency’s existing and future water supply sources for the next 20 years. This chapter will provide the following information:
• Existing and planned sources of water
• Projections of the water supplies over five-year increments through 2040 • Description of anticipated availability under normal, single dry, and five-year droughts • Description of the management of each supply in correlation • Description of information pertinent to the reliability of the supplies, including considerations for climate change effects
6.1 Narrative Sections for Supplier’s UWMP Water Supply Characterization
6.1.1 Purchased or Imported Water
The City does not currently purchase or import water from any other water supply or entity.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-2
6.1.2 Groundwater
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(b)(4):
If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information:
(A) The current version of any groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part
2.74 (commencing with Section 10720), any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management for basins underlying the urban water supplier’s service area.
(B) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For basins that a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For a basin that has not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin as a high- or medium-priority basin in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to coordinate with groundwater sustainability agencies or groundwater management agencies listed in subdivision (c) of Section 10723 to maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater conditions in accordance with a groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720).
(C) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (D) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
The City's sole source of drinking water is from the groundwater aquifer underlying the community. The following sections describe the current status of the GSP, the groundwater basin from which the City pumps groundwater, and a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of historical and projected groundwater pumping.
6.1.2.1 Groundwater Sustainability Plan
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) into law. This legislation is intended to provide a framework for management of groundwater supplies by local agencies and restricts state intervention, if required. The three legislative bills that make up the SGMA are AB 1739, SB 1319, and SB 1168. SGMA required that high-priority basins develop groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), develop GSPs, and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. The Merced Subbasin was classified as a high-priority basin in the SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization, completed in December 2019.
Water management and land management agencies in the Merced Subbasin formed three GSAs: the Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA (MIUGSA), the Merced Subbasin GSA, and the Turner Island Water District BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-3
GSA. The three GSAs collaborated on a GSP for the entire Merced Subbasin. The City is a member of the MIUGSA which was formed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MID, City, City of Atwater, City of Livingston, Le Grand Community Services District, Planada Community Services District, and Winton Water and Sanitary District.
The Merced Subbasin GSP was adopted by the MIUGSA in December 2019 and is available to view on the Merced SGMA’s website (http://mercedsgma.org/resources). With the adoption of the Merced Subbasin GSP, the participating GSAs adopted a goal of achieving sustainable groundwater management on a longterm average basis by increasing recharge and/or reducing groundwater pumping, while avoiding undesirable results. The goal will be achieved by allocating a portion of the estimated Merced Subbasin sustainable yield to each of the three participating GSAs and coordinating the implementation of programs and projects to increase both direct and in-lieu groundwater recharge which will in turn increase the groundwater and/or surface water available. Implementation of the GSP will be a substantial undertaking. The Merced Subbasin GSP implementation schedule for the initial five years (2020-2025) focuses on monitoring and reporting activities, including developing initial GSA allocations, and establishing allocation procedures and demand reduction efforts. The implementation of the GSP will improve the long-term water supply reliability for the City by providing estimates for sustainable groundwater quantities that are available.
6.1.2.2 Groundwater Basin Description
The City is located within the geomorphical province known as the Central Valley, which is divided into the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The groundwater underlying the City is part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin within the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region. The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is further subdivided into nine subbasins, including the Merced Subbasin. The City lies entirely within the Merced Subbasin (Subbasin 5-22.04), as shown in Figure 6-1.
The Merced Subbasin (Subbasin 5-22.04) covers a surface area of approximately 491,000 acres (767 square miles).
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-4
Figure 6-1 – Groundwater Basins and Subbasins
The Merced Subbasin contains three principal aquifers that are defined by their relationship to the Corcoran Clay aquitard, a laterally-extensive silt and clay layer that underlies approximately the western half of the subbasin and acts as a significant confining layer. The Above Corcoran Principal Aquifer includes all aquifer units that exist above the Corcoran Clay Aquitard and generally contains moderate to large hydraulic conductivities and yields for domestic and irrigation uses. The Below Corcoran Principal Aquifer includes all aquifer units that exist below the Corcoran Clay Aquitard and contains hydraulic conductivities and yields ranging from small to large for irrigation as well as some domestic and municipal uses. The Outside Corcoran Principal Aquifer includes all aquifers that exist outside of the eastern lateral extent of the Corcoran Clay. The Outside Corcoran Principal Aquifer is connected laterally with the Above Corcoran Principal Aquifer at shallower depths and the Below Corcoran Principal Aquifer at deeper depths. Major uses of water in the Outside Corcoran Principal Aquifer include irrigation, domestic, and municipal uses.
The Principal Aquifers are underlain by a deep aquifer with higher salinity relative to the principal aquifers.
The groundwater aquifer from which the City obtains its water is not adjudicated. An adjudication consists of a groundwater basin in which all rights to water could be defined by a court. As a non-adjudicated basin, there are no defined legal pumping rights for the City and there are no legal constraints on groundwater pumping.
The Merced Subbasin is a high priority basin and is critically overdrafted. The City and other members of the MIUGSA are in the process of implementing measures from the recently adopted GSP to sustainably manage the groundwater basin, including allocation of the estimated sustainable yield of the basin to the GSAs.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
\
Legend
D San Joaqu in Hydrographic Region
Groundwater Basin
Eastern SanJoaquin(5-22.o1J
Modesto(s-22.02)
Turlock (5-:u.03)
Merced(5- 22.04)
Chowchilla (5-22.o5)
Made ra(5-22.06)
Delta-Mendota(5-2i.07)
Tracy (s-22.15)
(osumnes(s-:u.16)
Yosemit eValley (s-69)
los BanosCreekValley (5-7o)
Sourc e-;:ClWRBulletin 118,
ESRl, County of Merced,
Nwticma l Atla s,USGS
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-5
6.1.2.3 Past Five Years
The historical volume of groundwater pumped by the City over the past five years is provided in Table 6- 1 (DWR Table 6-1).
Table 6-1 – Groundwater Volume Pumped (DWR Table 6-1)
6.1.3 Surface Water
The City does not receive any water supply from surface water.
6.1.4 Stormwater
Stormwater throughout the City is collected by the City’s existing storm drainage facilities, which consist of an underground storm drain system, detention ponds, underground storage pipes, pump stations, and open channels.
The City does not have any existing facilities to recover stormwater for beneficial use such as recharge, irrigation, or reuse. Currently, the City’s infrastructure conveys stormwater into MID’s canals and natural channels.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENG INEERS, INC.
!submittal Table 6-1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped
■
Suppli er does not pump groundwater.
The supplie r will not complete the table below.
■ All or part of t he groundwater desc ribed below is desa linated.
Groundwate r Type
Drop Down List
Moy use each category
Locat ion or Basin Name 2016* 2017* 2018* 2019* 2020*
multiple times
Add additional rows as needed
Alluvial Basin Merced Subbasin 17813 18692 19488 18931 20076 TOTAL 17,813 18,692 19,488 18,931 20,076
NOTES:
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-6
6.1.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10633:
The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area, and shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal.
(b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. (c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use.
(d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. (e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision.
(f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.
(g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use.
The UWMPA requires that the UWMP address the opportunities for development of recycled water, including the description of existing recycled water applications, quantities of wastewater currently being treated to recycled water standards, limitations on the use of available recycled water, an estimate of projected recycled water use, the feasibility of said projected uses, and practices to encourage the use of recycled water.
6.1.5.1 Recycled Water Coordination
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10633:
The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area…
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-7
All the City’s wastewater is treated at the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The facility produces equivalent disinfected tertiary effluent and is permitted to treat 12.0 million gallons per day (mgd), with plans for future expansions to treat up to 20.0 mgd. Although the facility can produce disinfected tertiary recycled water, use of the effluent as a water source within the City water service area is unlikely due to the remote location of the WWTF and the high cost associated with constructing the necessary infrastructure.
6.1.5.2 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10633(a):
A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal.
The City collects, treats, and recycles both municipal and process wastewater. Municipal wastewater is generated from a combination of residential, commercial, and industrial sources. The City owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater collection system that serves the City’s water service area. The collection system consists of gravity sewers up to 54-inches in diameter, lift stations, and force mains.
Wastewater is treated at the WWTF to equivalent disinfected tertiary standards. The treated effluent is discharged to Hartley Slough and the Merced Wildlife Management Area (WMA). Effluent is also used to irrigate the Land Application Areas (LAA). The WWTF, WMA, and LAA are located outside of the City water service area.
Tables 6-2 and 6-3 summarize information regarding the wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge within the service area in 2020. The total volume of wastewater collected and treated includes the City’s municipal users and UC Merced.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-8
Table 6-2 – Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 (DWR Table 6-2) Table 6-3 – Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020 (DWR Table 6-3) BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
[Submittal Table 6-2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area in 2020 ■ There is no wastewater collection system. The supplier will not complete the table below.
Percentage of 2015 service area covered by wastewater collection system (optional) Percentage of 2015 service area population covered by wastewater collection system (optional) Wastewater Collection Recipient of Collected Wastewater Volume of Name of lsWWTP
Name of Wastewater Wastewater Is WWTP Locat ed Operation Wastewat er Wastewater Volume Metered Treatment Treatment Plant Within UWMP Contracted to a Collected from Collection or Estimated? Agency Receiving Name Area? Third Party? UWMP Service Agency Drop Down List Collected Oro p Down List (optional) Area 2020 * Wastewater DropDo= Ust M erced
City of Mer ced M et ered 8,848 City of Merced
Wastewater
Treatment
No No
Facility
Total Wastewater Collected from
Service Area in 2020: 8,848
NOTES : Merced Wastewater Treatment Facility is located outside the City water service area Ii mits.
SU bminal Table 6-3 Reta ii: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area in 2020 - No wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area. The supplier will not complete the table below. 2020volumes 1
Wast~ater Discharge
Treatment Plant Location Name
Name or Identifier
Wastewater Method of Treatment Dis.cha rge Discharge ID W asteYfater Location Disposal Gener&ed Level Discharged Recycled Recyc led Inst.ream Flow Number Wastewater Desc With in Service riptioo Outside the Treated Outside of r>e rmit /opoona~ 2 Dropdawn.la.t Drop dawn list Treated Service Area? ' Wastew-ater Area Service Area Re<i1J irement Dropdawni5t
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-9
6.1.5.3 Recycled Water System Description
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10633 (c):
A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use.
The City uses recycled water to create a series of percolation and evaporation ponds at the WMA and to irrigate crops grown on the LAA. These areas are located outside of the City’s water service area.
6.1.5.4 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10633:
(b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. (d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. (e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision.
The WWTF treats all the wastewater to equivalent disinfected tertiary recycled water standards. A portion of the effluent is discharged to Hartley Slough and could potentially be used in a recycled water project in the future. Because the effluent meets disinfected tertiary recycled water standards, potential uses include agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, and other uses allowed by applicable recycled water standards. The technical and economic feasibility of these uses could be evaluated by the City as potential recycled water opportunities are identified. Currently, agriculture and wildlife habitat enhancement are the main recipients of recycled water and are projected to remain as the main users in the future. Tables 6-4 (DWR Table 6-4 R) and 6-5 (DWR Table 6-5 R) summarize the City’s 2020 and projected recycled water use.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-10
Table 6-4 – Current and Projected Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area (DWR Table 6-4 R)
Table 6-5 – 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual (DWR Table 6-5 R) BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Submittal Table 6- 4 Retail: Recycled Water Dire-ct Beneficial Uses Within Service-Area -
Recyciedw3ter i:s oot used and isr,ot p ;;nr,edforusewith int heservk e 3•e3 of t~•esupplier.
Th e supp Le· wJ oot COIT'4) _etet hoetab!e bl:'!ow.
N3 me of Suppl ·,er Prod 00 r.g (Tre3ti ► th e Recyd ed W3ter:
r, 3me of supp1:eroperatingthe Recycled water Distribution 51Jstem:
Supp anenta l w ater Added iD 2020 [vo um ► tndude u.nic5 source of 2.020Supp ernental '1/1/a ter
6enefitia U-se Type
oodiriona! rowsifneetJed..
Am:nmt of Potential
Insert Potential Benefici.all uses.of Recyd ed Water Genera Desoiptlion U!eSO~= ~: w ater Inc]~°:,;,,~ units1 o f 2020 u~
Level of
Tu ~atment
D,ul'd,'l'll'llct
2020 1
Total: 0
---
2025 1 2030 1 20351 20,0'
Submittal lable 6-5 Retail: 2015 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual
Recycled water was not used in 2015 nor project ed for use in 2020. 2045' (opt)
D The supplier will not complete t he table below. If recycled wate r was not used i"1 2020, and was not predicted to be in 201 5, then check the box and do not complete the table_
Benefioial Use Type
lnsertadditiooal rows as needed_
Agricultural irrigation
Lands.cape irrigation (excgo1t co~se.}
Wetlands or wildli1ie habitat
Other {Description Required)
Totall
--
2015 Projection for
2020 1
3,500
58 2,215
1 5,774
2020 Actual Use1
0 l ,16911
4,050
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-11
6.1.5.5 Actions to Encourage and Optimize Future Recycled Water Use Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10633:
The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier… and shall include the following:
(g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use.
The City supports the use of recycled water in the service area where economically feasible. Most of the potential use of recycled water consists of agricultural demands and minimal application is planned for urban reuse due to the remote location of the WWTF. The main method identified for expanding future recycled water use is through a water exchange with MID. Table 6-6 (DWR Table 6-6) summarizes methods to expand future recycled water use.
Table 6-6 – Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use (DWR Table 6-6)
6.1.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(g):
Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply.
Because the City is not located in a coastal area, seawater desalination is not applicable to the City and is not currently considered technically or economically feasible. In addition, the groundwater that underlies the City is not brackish in nature and does not require desalination. As such, the City does not have any plans to incorporate desalinated or treated brackish water into its supply portfolio.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENG INEERS, INC.
mittal Table 6-6 Retail: Methods to Expand Fu1:ure Recycled Water Use Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete ■
Name of Action
the table below but will provide narrative explanation.
Provide page location of narrative in UWM P
Description
Planned
Implementation
Year
fodd addHionaJ rows as needed
M ID Exchange
NOTES:
Exchange of recycled wat er for surfa ce
wat er. WW-2030
Total
Expected Increase in
Recycled Wat er Use *
60 60
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-12
6.1.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631(c):
Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis.
The UWMPA requires that the UWMP address the opportunities for transfers or exchanges.
6.1.7.1 Exchanges
The City has considered long term exchange opportunities with MID. In exchange for recycled water, MID could provide surface water to supplement the City’s water supply in the future. According to the MIRWMP, MID deliveries are projected to be 60 AF per year (AFY) initially, potentially rising to 15,000 AFY in 2030 [6].
6.1.7.2 Transfers
UC Merced’s Long Range Development Plan identifies the need for the campus to consider the use of recycled water for irrigation and industrial use. The plan recognizes the City as a source for recycled water.
However, the City and UC Merced do not have any plans to implement the transfer of recycled water.
Therefore, any transfers between the City and UC Merced have not been considered for the planning period.
The City’s 2017 Water Master Plan identifies the need to increase the water supply in the future and outlines alternatives to address the potential supply deficiency. The recommended alternative includes the construction of a 10-mgd Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) and would require delivery of raw surface water from MID. An average of 4,000 AFY is estimated to be provided to the City from the SWTP.
6.1.8 Future Water Projects
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631 (f):
Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use, as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in normal and single dry water years and for a period of drought lasting five consecutive water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project.
The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program.
To alleviate groundwater reliance, the Water Master Plan recommends the conjunctive use of surface and groundwater to meet future water demands. The construction of a 10-mgd SWTP and six additional wells with a capacity of 2,500 gpm each is identified as the most reliable approach to meeting future demands.
These projects are recommended to be implemented by the year 2030. The existing well capacity of the City is 54,400 gpm. With the addition of the six wells and the SWTP, the maximum rated capacity would BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-13
increase to 73,400 gpm. A summary of expected future water supply projects is in Table 6-7 (DWR Table 6-7). The City also intends to pursue groundwater recharge projects and will continue efforts along with their partnering agencies through the GSP.
Table 6-7 – Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Program (DWR Table 6-7)
6.1.9 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631:
(b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), providing supporting and related information, including all of the following…
(b)(2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, a description of the management of each supply in correlation with the other identified supplies. (h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).
Drop Down List (y/n) If Yes, Supplier Name
Surface Water
Treatment Plant Yes MID
Alternative to
increased wells 2030 All Year Types 4,000
New Wells No
Required to
meet future
water demands
2030 All Year Types 8,642
No expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the agency's water supply. Supplier will not complete the table below.
Some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format.
Submittal Table 6-7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs Joint Project with other suppliers?
NOTES:
Name of Future
Projects or Programs
Description
(if needed)
Planned
Implementation
Year
Expected
Increase in
Water Supply to
Supplier*
This may be a range
Planned for Use
in Year Type
Drop Down List
Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP
Add additional rows as needed
*Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Table 2-3.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-14
This section describes the types of water that is supplied to the City and the quantity supplied by each water source.
6.1.9.1 Description of Supplies
Currently, the City exclusively uses groundwater for its potable water supply. In the future, if the SWTP is constructed, the City will use the contractual amount of surface water available and supplement the remaining demand with groundwater. Recycled water is supplied by the City for agricultural and wetland use.
6.1.9.2 Quantification of Supplies
The actual (2020) water supplies for the City are summarized in Table 6-8 (DWR Table 6-8). The projected water supplies for the City are summarized in Table 6-9 (DWR Table 6-9).
Table 6-8 – Water Supplies – Actual (DWR Table 6-8)
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Drop down ,51
Ma,, use each category multip~
times.These a-ethe on ti, water 9.Jpply
categories that will be recogniz ed by
theWUEdata on line submttal tool
Add additiona l rows as needed
Additiona l Detai l 011
Water Supply
Groundw at er (not desali11 at ed) M erced Subba s.i11
Total
Actual Volume*
Water Quality Tot al Right or Saf e
Drop Down List Yield* ( optiona l)
W ,076 Drinking Water
20,076 0
NOTES: This. ta ble does. not i11clude recycled w at er produced and us.ed by the City becaus,e the recycled w at er is. us,ed out s.ide of the City w at er s,ervice ar ea.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
6-15
Table 6-9 – Water Supplies – Projected (DWR Table 6-9)
6.1.10 Special Conditions
Numerous special conditions may affect water supplies. The potential impacts of climate change on the City water supplies were discussed in Section 4.4. Regulatory conditions and other locally applicable criteria are not anticipated to affect the City’s water supply.
6.2 Energy Use
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631.2. (a):
In addition to the requirements of Section 10631, an urban water management plan shall include any of the following information that the urban water supplier can readily obtain:
(1) An estimate of the amount of energy used to extract or divert water supplies. (2) An estimate of the amount of energy used to convey water supplies to the water treatment plants or distribution systems.
(3) An estimate of the amount of energy used to treat water supplies. (4) An estimate of the amount of energy used to distribute water supplies through its distribution systems.
(5) An estimate of the amount of energy used for treated water supplies in comparison to the amount used for nontreated water supplies.
(6) An estimate of the amount of energy used to place water into or withdraw from storage. (7) Any other energy-related information the urban water supplier deems appropriate.
The City uses energy to pump groundwater through a wellhead perchloroethylene (PCE) treatment system at one well and from well sites into the distribution system. Energy intensity was calculated using the tables provided by DWR. DWR Table O-1B was selected for reporting the water delivery product energy usage. The energy use tables for retail water delivery, wastewater, and recycled water are provided in Appendix G.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Addniona Deta"l on urn~ Ill=.are lh'.!: Ollifw.:1.1~ WateJ SUpply ~op}fa1~tll:.,.,.. bc Reasonably Tota 11:· t or Reasona bly rec.ognacd ?iyUle WU£&ta onllric Ava b!e :safe Yi d Ava ,g;j(n /1.t.i,l ll;l(ll voe me {optionaij ">lume
Add .ad:litio".al row:s .asnee::led
Grou Rdw.ateJ {.not
d:e:ralin ated Merc~:subb.a:91 24, 418 26,691 24,9 3-S 2 7,755 R:ecyd!ed W at E1' w e ands& ag.ric:u ure 0 0 0 0
Excha n~ s M ID for iR"fr:ation 60 6 0 60
TransfeJs M IDfor SWTP 4 000 4,000
Total 24,41.B 0 26,75 1 0 2.8,9~5 0 31,§25 0 0 0
r.OTE.S
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-1
7 Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment The UWMPA requires that the UWMP address the reliability of the City's long term water supplies. This includes a description of supply constraints which may impact the supply. Also included is a comparison between the City’s supply and demand for a normal year, single-dry year, and five-consecutive year drought.
7.1 Water Service Reliability Assessment
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10635(a):
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years.
This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
Expected water service reliability pursuant to Section 10631 of the Water Code is assessed in the following sections.
7.1.1 Service Reliability – Constraints on Water Sources Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631 (b)(1):
A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment. For each source of water supply, consider any information pertinent to the reliability analysis conducted pursuant to Section 10635, including changes in supply due to climate change.
Given there are a variety of circumstances that can render a source inconsistent, determining the supply reliability for the City is difficult because of the complex factors that accompany a water source. These factors include legal issues, environmental constraints, water quality, and climatic variations.
7.1.1.1 Legal
The supplies the City relies upon are neither in the process of adjudication nor the subject of any new legislation limiting them. Therefore, the City does not anticipate legal factors influencing the reliability of groundwater within the near term. However, that could change in the future, with the implementation of the SGMA.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-2
7.1.1.2 Environmental
The status of environmental regulation in California is routinely changing due to new legislation, endangered species statuses, and other factors. Should new environmental legislation come into existence, it could potentially impact the City's available supply. The recent water supply reductions in the Delta are an example of environmental water needs versus community water supplies. The City does not anticipate environmental factors influencing groundwater reliability.
7.1.1.3 Water Quality
Water quality testing, as summarized in the City’s Consumer Confidence Reports for 2016 – 2019 (provided in Appendix H) show that the City consistently meets or surpasses all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State drinking water health standards. Although the quality of the existing groundwater is expected to be adequate for potable water, previous assessments have concluded that groundwater quality is vulnerable from: gas stations (current and historic), dry cleaners, leaking underground storage tanks, leaks from the sewer collection system, chemical/petroleum pipelines, fertilizer, pesticide/herbicide application, agricultural drainage, farm chemical distributor/application service, low density septic systems, agricultural wells, and irrigation wells. Contaminants in the area include groundwater salinity, nitrate, iron, manganese, arsenic, radio-nucleotides, bacteria, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, trichloroethylene, and perchloroethylene. Arsenic, PCE, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), and nitrate have been historically detected in one or more City wells. However, the City has been able to achieve drinking water standards by either blending or taking wells offline.
The City does not anticipate groundwater quality effecting groundwater reliability within the planning period. Nevertheless, as testing methods become more discerning and regulations become more stringent, it can be expected that sources will need additional treatment in the future to stay in compliance.
7.1.1.4 Climatic Factors
Climate change adds uncertainties to water supply planning. Changes to temperatures and precipitation patterns may impact water demands and supply availability. As discussed in Section 4.4, resource management strategies are being implemented to mitigate the effects of the potential impacts due to climate change.
7.1.2 Service Reliability – Year Type Characterization
This section addresses the reliability of the City’s water supply in average, single dry, and multiple dry water years. The City uses the following water year definitions from the DWR 2020 Guidebook:
• Normal Year: a year, or an averaged range of years, that most closely represents the average water supply available to the agency. For the purposes of this UWMP, the terms “normal” and “average” are used interchangeably.
• Single Dry Year: the year that represents the lowest water supply available to the agency. • Five-Consecutive-Year Drought: the driest five-year historical sequence for the Supplier (Water Code Section 10612).
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-3
The City relies on groundwater as its sole source for supply, which is not as susceptible to annual runoff fluctuations as surface water. The single dry year and five-consecutive-year drought supplies are representative of annual groundwater pumping during the recent 2012-2016 drought. Rainfall data indicates that 2013 was the driest year for the City and is considered representative of the single dry year condition. The average year supply was estimated based on rainfall records from 2000 to 2020. From this data, 2009 was determined to be a representative average year.
Table 7-1 (DWR Table 7-1) summarizes the base years for the average, single dry, and five-consecutivedry year periods. In addition, the available supply volume, and percent relative to the ten-year average (average year) is listed. The average year was selected by evaluating the ten-year per capita water use and determining the year that best represents the average. For the five-consecutive-dry year scenario, the available supply for the first and second years (2012 and 2013) was higher than the average year due to increased water usage to compensate for the lack of precipitation. In 2015, California enacted conservation measures, which required the City to reduce their usage relative to 2013.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-4
Table 7-1 – Basis of Water Year Data (DWR Table 7-1)
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Year Type
Average Year
Single-Dry Year
Consecutive Dry Years 1st Year
Consecutive Dry Years 2nd Year
Consecutive Dry Years 3rd Year
Consecutive Dry Years 4th Year
Consecutive Dry Years 5th Year
Base Year
If not u.sirg a calendar
year, tyi:>e in the last
year of the fiscal,
water yea r J or range
Quant ification of available supplies is not
D compatible with this t able and is provided
elsewhere i11 the UWM P. Location
of years, for example, >---+-------------------------<
water yea r 2!019-
2!0:1!0, use 2020
2009
2013
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Quantifi cation of available supplies is provided i11
0 this t able as either volume only, percent only, or
both.
Volume Available* % of Average Supply
23 , 306 100%
27,470 120%
25,g9,g 110%
27,470 120%
25, 232 110%
17,855 80%
17,813 80%
Supplier may use multiple versions of Table 7-1 if different water sources have different base years and the supplier chooses to report the base years for each water source separately. if a Supplier uses multiple versions of Table 7-1,. in the "Note" section ofeach table,. state that multiple versions of Table 7-1 are being used and identify the particular water source that is being reported ineach table.
NOTES: Volume available w as est imat ed based 0 111 the volume pumped for t he base year listed.% of Average W at er Su pply is rou nded to t he nea rest: 10%. Dat a does not accurately reflect available supply because volume pumped is not necessa rily equivalent to available w at er supply. When available, sustainable yield informat ion from t he M er ced Subbasi11 GSP activities will be used i11 th e fut ure.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-5
7.1.3 Service Reliability – Supply and Demand Comparison Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10635(a):
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years.
This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.
7.1.3.1 Water Service Reliability – Normal Year
The availability of the City’s water supplies in normal years are described in Chapter 6 and summarized in Table 7-2 (DWR Table 7-2). As shown in Table 7-2 (DWR Table 7-2), the City’s normal year supplies are adequate to meet projected normal year demands. The information in the table is taken from information presented previously in Tables 4-5 and 6-9 (DWR Tables 4-3 and 6-9).
Table 7-2 – Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-2)
7.1.3.2 Water Service Reliability – Single Dry Year
The City’s water supply and demand for the single dry year are assumed to be twenty percent higher than normal year supply and demand for planning purposes, as shown in Table 7-1 (DWR Table 7-1). The projected single dry year supply and demand for 2020 through 2040 is presented in Table 7-3 (DWR Table 7-3). The projections indicate that the City’s single dry yearsupplies are adequate to meet projected single dry year demands.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Submittal Table 7-2 Retail: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Opt)
Supply o als
(autofillfrom Table 6-9) 24l,418 26, 751 28;99,S 31,825 0 Dem and otals
{auto/ill from Table 4-3) 24l,418 2.6, 751 28;995 31,825 0 Difference
0 0 0 0 0
NOTES:
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-6
Table 7-3 – Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-3)
7.1.3.3 Water Service Reliability – Five-Consecutive-Year Drought Per CWC Section 10612, the five-consecutive-year drought is the driest five-year historical sequence for the Supplier. The City’s water supply and demand for the five-consecutive-year drought are assumed to follow the pattern presented in Table 7-1 (DWR Table 7-1). As shown in Table 7-4 (DWR Table 7-4), the City’s five-consecutive-year drought supplies are adequate to meet projected demands.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Submittal Table 7-3 Retail: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 (Op )
Supply to als* 29,301 32,101 34, 7'9'4 38,1:9,0
Demand ot als* 29,301 32,101 34, 7'9'4 38,19'0
Difference 0 0 0 0
Table 7-1 es .i ma es. Su ppl'y o al i,s assumed o m a ,ch wi h Dem and o al because groundwa er pum ping will operate, o mee demands.
0 City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-7
Table 7-4 – Multiple Dry-Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-4) BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGIN EERS, INC.
Sub mitt al Table 7-4 Retail: Multiple Dry Yea rs Supply and Demand Com pa riso n 2025* 2030* 2035* 2040* 2045* (Op }
Supply ot als 26,860 2.9,426 31,895 35,008
First year Demand to als 26,860 2.9,426 31,895 35,008
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply ot als 29,301 32,101 34 ,794 38,1:90
Second year Demand o als 29,301 32,101 34 ,794 38,1:90
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply ot als 26,860 2.9,426 31,895 35,008
Thi rd year Demand to als 26,860 2.9,426 31,895 35,008
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply ot als 19 1,534 2L401 2.3 ,1:96 25,460
Fourth year Demand to als 19 1
,534 21,401 2.3 ,1:96 25,460
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply ot als 19,534 21,401 23,1:96 25,460
Fifth year Demand to als 19 1,534 21,401 23,1:96 25,460 Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply ot als
Sixth year
Demand to als (optional)
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
DWR Table• 7-1. Supply o al i,s assumed o m a ,ch wi, h Dem and o al becaus,e grou ndwa ,er pumping wil I operate o mee d,emand,s .
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-8
7.1.4 Description of Management Tools and Options
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10620(f):
An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water management tools and options used by that entity that will maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions.
The City is implementing water management tools and options that will maximize local resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. These tools and options include being a member of the MIUGSA and participating in the implementation of the GSP, resource management strategies described in the City’s Climate Action Plan and the MIRWMP, and shortage response actions/demand mitigation measures to address the overdraft condition in the groundwater basin. These tools and options are described in other sections of the UWMP.
Because groundwater is currently the sole source of water for the City and is projected to be a major source of water in the future, Tables 7-2 through 7-4 (DWR Tables 7-2 through 7-4) show water supply matching water demands. Groundwater wells will only be operated as needed to meet water demands, even though the groundwater supply could provide more water. This assumption should be updated when GSA allocations for the City are determined.
7.2 Drought Risk Assessment
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10635(b):
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment for its water service to its customers as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects and programs to be included in the urban water management plan. The urban water supplier may conduct an interim update or updates to this drought risk assessment within the five-year cycle of its urban water management plan update. The drought risk assessment shall include each of the following:
(1) A description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts five consecutive water years, starting from the year following when the assessment is conducted. (2) A determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions. This may include a determination that a particular source of water supply is fully reliable under most, if not all, conditions.
(3) A comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period.
(4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria.
This section provides a DRA based on the five driest consecutive years on record and plausible changes in climate, regulations, and other locally applicable criteria. A description of the data and methods used, basis for the supply shortage conditions, determination of the reliability of each source, and comparison of total water supplies and uses during a drought is provided below.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-9
7.2.1 DRA Data, Methods, and Basis for Water Shortage Conditions The data used for the DRA is historical well data for 2012-2016, the driest five-year historical sequence for the City, and other historical records regarding the water system. Additional information is available in the Merced Subbasin GSP.
7.2.2 DRA Water Source Reliability
Based on historical well production data for 2012-2016, well production was not affected by drought conditions. Therefore, this DRA assumes that the total water supply is projected to meet demands during a five-year drought period. Recent water quality issues, potential regulations regarding new contaminants, and changes to the aquifer conditions may have adverse impacts on the water supply and should be monitored closely.
7.2.3 DRA Total Water Supply and Use Comparison
The total water supply and use comparison was performed using the Planning Tool Worksheet and is shown in Table 7-5 (DWR Table 7-5). The water supply and use assume the City will continue to implement Stage 2 shortage reduction actions because the groundwater basin is critically overdrafted. The comparison indicates that the City has sufficient water supply to meet projected demands during a fiveyear drought. The WSCP discusses measures for reducing water demands in case of water shortage conditions.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
7-10
Table 7-5 – Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables (DWR Table 7-5) BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Submittal Table 7-5: five-Year l)rought Risk Assessment Tables to address water Code Section 10635{bl
2021 Total
TotalWater Use 24,754
Total Supples 24,754
Surplus/Shortfall w/ o W:t:, P AcriJn 0
PlannedlWSCPActi:ons (use red uction and supply augmentation) WSCP-s,ipply a,igmenta:ion benen
WSCP - IB=· reductiJn Sa1ings benen :
Revisej Su rpus/(shortfa~ 0
Res,iltilg % Use Reductb n f rom WSCP acriJn (J½
2022 Total
TotalWater Use 27,579
Total Supples 27,579
Surplus/Sha rtfall w/ o• W:t:, P AcriJn 0
PlannedWSCPActions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP- s,ipply a,igmenta:ion beneU:
WSCP - lB= reductiJn Sa1ings benelii:
Revisej Su rpus/(shortfa~ 0
Res,iltilg % Use Reductb nf rom WSCP acriJn (J½
2023 Total
TotalWater Use 25,807
Total Supples 25,807
Surplus/Sha rtfall vJ/ o W':I:, P AaiJn 0
Plann.edlWSCPActions (use red uction and supply augmentation) WSCP- s,ipply a,igmenta:ion benat
WSCP - lB= reductiJn Sa1ings benat
Revisej Su rpus/(shortfa~ 0
Res,iltilg % Use ReductiJ.n f rom WSCP acriJn (J½
2024 Total
TotalWater Use 19,152
Total Supples 19,152
Surplus/Sha rtfall w/ o W:t:, P AcriJn 0
Plann.edlWSCPActions (use reduction and supply augmentation) WSCP- s,ipply a,igmenta:ion benat
WSCP - lB= reductiJn Sa1ings benat
Revisej Su rpus/(shortfa~ 0
Res,iltilg % Use ReductiJ.nf rom WSCP acriJn (J½
2025 Total
TotalWater Use 19,.5-34
Total Supples 19,.534
Surplus/Shortfall w/ o W:t:, P AcriJn 0
Plann.edlWSCPActi:ons (use red uction and supply augmentation) WSCP- s,ipply a,igm enta:ion benat
WSCP - IB=· reductiJn Sa1ings benat
Revisej Su rpus/(shortfa~ 0
Res,iltilg % Use Reductb nf rom WSCP acriJn (J½
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
8-1
8 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
In response to the severe drought of 2012-2016, legislation was adopted in 2018 mandating that the UWMP include a WSCP that provides a detailed proposal for assessing water supply availability and response actions to water shortage conditions. The WSCP is to be a stand-alone document which will allow for amending the plan without amending the 2020 UWMP. The City WSCP is provided in Appendix I. Refer to the WSCP for the following DWR Tables:
• DWR Tables 8-1: WSCP Levels
• DWR Tables 8-2: Demand Reduction Actions
• DWR Tables 8-3: Supply Augmentation and Other Actions BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
9-1
9 Demand Management Measures
This section provides a comprehensive description of the water conservation programs that the City has implemented, is currently implementing, and plans to implement in order to meet its urban water use reduction targets.
9.1 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631:
(e)Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1)(A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measure that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. (B)The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures:
(i)Water waste prevention ordinances.
(ii)Metering.
(iii)Conservation pricing.
(iv)Public education and outreach.
(v)Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss. (vi)Water conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii)Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented.
The City has a water conservation and recycling program in place. The City takes water conservation very seriously and considers implementation of Demand Management Measures (DMM) as a necessity to achieve the goals of the conservation program.
The UWMPA presents two distinct methods for providing information related to DMM. One method is to be a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) MOU regarding urban water conservation. The MOU requires the preparation of an annual report, which can be used to fulfill the DMM requirements of the UWMP. The City is not a signatory to the MOU, and therefore this method of compliance cannot be used in the UWMP.
The other method for a water supplier who is not member of the CUWCC is to describe their current water conservation programs and demonstrate how they comply with the DMM specified in CWC Section 10631.
The UWMPA was amended in 2014 to streamline DMM from 14 specific measures to six more general requirements and an "other" category.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
9-2
9.1.1 Water Waste Prohibition Ordinances
Chapter 15.42 of the City of Merced Municipal Code (MMC), also referred to as the Water Conservation Ordinance prohibits the waste of water through prohibition of the following activities:
• Washing of sidewalks, driveways, and other outdoor surfaces • Washing of the exterior of dwellings, buildings, and structures • Non-recirculating fountains
• Use of water from the City’s distribution system for non-domestic purposes when another adequate source of water is available
• External washing of trailers, trailer houses, mobile homes, and home exteriors unless in conjunction with painting
• The washing of boats or motor vehicles with a hose that is not fitted with an automatic shut-off device
• The indiscriminate running of water or washing with water not otherwise prohibited above which is wasteful and without reasonable purpose
• Watering landscape during and within 48 hours of measurable rainfall • All car wash fundraising must be held at an established car wash facility that collects and recycles the runoff water before it enters the City’s sewer system • The serving of drinking water other than upon request in eating or drinking establishments • Operators of hotelsshall provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily
The ordinance also includes mandatory conservation measures, replacement of broken plumbing fixtures and sprinklers, limited irrigation hours, and restrictions for outdoor irrigation by day of week (based on odd and even street address). The ordinance levies fines and penalties for noncompliance with the City's water waste prohibition. The penalties include termination of water service and financial penalties. A copy of the Water Conservation Ordinance is provided in Appendix J.
9.1.2 Metering
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 526:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an urban water supplier that, on or after January 1, 2004, receives water from the federal Central Valley Project under a water service contract or subcontract... shall do both of the following:
(1) On or before January 1, 2013, install water meters on all service connections to residential and nonagricultural commercial buildings... located within its service area.
Water Code section 527
(a) An urban water supplier that is not subject to Section 526 shall do both the following:
(1) Install water meters on all municipal and industrialservice connections located within its service area on or before January 1, 2025.
In 2015, the City was awarded the 2014 Water Energy Grant and received $2.5 million to install water meters on remaining customers still on a flat water rate. The City is fully metered for all customer classes, BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
9-3
including separate meters for single family residential, commercial, and industrial and schools. Multiple family customers are metered but not necessarily individually by living unit.
9.1.3 Conservation Pricing
On October 15, 2018, the City adopted a multi-year water rate program (Appendix K). Each metered customer pays a base rate according to meter size, plus a charge per one hundred cubic feet (HCF). Table 9-1 summarizes the latest rate structure for the City.
Table 9-1 – Water Rate Schedule
Meter Size Included HCF
Effective in
July 2019
Effective in
July 2020
Effective in
July 2021
¾” 20 $31.00 $31.62 $32.25
1” 20 $31.00 $31.62 $32.25
1 ½” 40 $61.53 $62.76 $64.02
2” 64 $98.16 $100.12 $102.12
3” 128 $195.85 $199.77 $203.77
4” 200 $305.76 $311.88 $318.12
6” 400 $611.04 $623.36 $635.73
8” 640 $977.38 $996.93 $1,016.87
10” 960 $1,465.84 $1,495.16 $1,525.06
12” 1350 $2,061.15 $2,102.37 $2,144.42
Volumetric
Charge: $0.74 / HCF $0.75 / HCF $0.77 / HCF
9.1.4 Public Education and Outreach
The City distributes public information in its utility bills, press releases via radio and newspaper, school curriculum, educational flyers, commercials on television and in theatres, water conservation suggestions and videos on its webpage, and providing economical water conservation kits. The City also staffs a water conservation booth with their water conservation coordinator for many public events.
The outdoor watering schedule is available on the City’s website, and is available in English, Spanish, and Hmong. The City’s website has included a page which discusses water conservation and has information about ongoing rebates and assistance programs. The City is committed to its public information program as an ongoing effort.
9.1.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss The City conducts a water audit using software provided by American Water Works Association (AWWA) annually. Appendix D contains a copy of water audits for 2015-2019. The results from the water audits were previously discussed in Chapter 4. Water audits are performed on an annual basis to identify leakage trends and to determine if/when corrective action to address leakage may be warranted.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
9-4
9.1.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support The City has a full-time staff person as the water conservation coordinator for the City. This position is responsible for coordinating water conservation activities as well as issuing informational handouts, notices, and citations to customers for violating the City’s water conservation ordinances.
9.1.7 Other Demand Management Measures
The City supports additional programs that provide rebates and promote water conservation. These programs are further discussed in the subsequent sections.
9.1.7.1 Residential Plumbing Retrofit
The City offers free low-flow shower heads and other types of low flow retrofit kits to customers at no cost to provide an incentive for their use. These are available to customers at the Finance and Public Works counter upon request. The City will continue to make these retrofit devices available for customers.
9.1.7.2 Washing Machine Rebate
This program provides financial incentives, typically in the form of rebate offers, to qualifying customers who install high-efficiency washing machines in their homes. While clothes washer rebates are available through other local utility providers, the City is not specifically implementing this Best Management Practice (BMP).
However, MID operates a high efficiency washing machine rebate program for their electricity customers.
The program offers a $75 rebate for purchase of an energy saving clothes washing machine or dishwasher.
While the program is a part of MID’s energy conservation rebate program, MID estimates the washing machines provide a water conservations savings of 40 percent when compared to conventional clothes washing machines.
9.1.7.3 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Conservation Programs Commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) customers are treated the same as residential customers. As a result, any demand reduction measures which are available and marketed to residential customers are also available for commercial, industrial, and institutional customers. For example, surveys, plumbing retrofits, toilet replacements, and public information programs are equally available to these customers and have not been tracked separately. All commercial and industrial projects are reviewed by the City for conformance with the City’s water efficient landscape ordinance. Separate water meters are always either recommended or required depending on the size of landscape areas at commercial, industrial, and institutional sites. All landscape projects on commercial sites are required to conform to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
9.1.7.4 Turf Replacement Initiative
DWR offered a rebate for single family residents and CII to remove their existing turf and replace it with landscape that requires little water. The City is seeking grant opportunities to fund a similar type of program in the future.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
9-5
9.2 Reporting Implementation
9.2.1 Implementation over the Past Five Years
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631:
(e) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1)(A) …a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years.
All DMM discussed in Section 9.1 were implemented and will continue to be implemented by the City. In 2016-2017, the City was awarded an Institutional Turf Replacement award to convert an area in a City park.
9.2.2 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10631:
(f)(1)(A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measure that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20.
The City implemented the DMM discussed in Section 9.1 and was able to achieve the SB X7-7 2020 target as shown in Table 5-2.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
10-1
10 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation
This chapter provides information regarding the addressing of the CWC requirements for public hearing, the UWMP adoption process, submitting and adopting the UWMP and making the document available to the public, plan implementation, and the process for amending an adopted UWMP.
10.1 Inclusion of All 2020 Data
As indicated in Chapter 2, the City uses a calendar year for water supply and demand accounting. This 2020 UWMP includes data through December 2020.
10.2 Notice of Public Hearing
10.2.1 Notice to Cities and Counties
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10621:
(b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall…at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan…notify any city or county within which the supplier provides waters supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.
Water Code Section 10642
…The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies. A privately owned water supplier shall provide an equivalent notice within its service area…
The City has provided formal written notification to Merced County, MID, and other appropriate agencies that the City’s UWMP was being updated for 2020. As shown in Table 10-1 (DWR Table 10-1), this notification was provided at least 60 days prior to the public hearing of the plan. Copies of the Final UWMP will be provided to Merced County and MID no later than 30 days after its submission to DWR. Copies of notification letters are included in Appendix C.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
10-2
Table 10-1 – Notification to Cities and Counties (DWR Table 10-1)
10.2.2 Notice to the Public
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10642:
…Prior to adopting either [the plan or water shortage contingency plan], the urban water supplier shall make both of the plan and the water shortage contingency plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing or hearings thereon. Prior to any of these hearings, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published within the jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code [see below]. The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of a hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies.
Government Code section 6066
Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for two successive weeks. Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. The period of notice commences upon the first day of publication and terminates at the end of the fourteenth day, including therein the first day.
The City is committed to encouraging the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of its citizenry. On August 5, 2021 and August 12, 2021, the City placed a notice in the local BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Submittal Table 10-1 Retail: Notification to Cities and Counties
City Name 60 Day Notice
Notice of Public
Hearing
Add additiooal rows as needed
County Name Notice of Public
Drop Down List 60 Day Notice Hearing
Add additiooal rows as needed
Merced County Yes Yes
NOTES: M erced Irrigat ion Dist rict, Univeristy ofCaliforn ia, Merced, Meroed College, Self Help Ent er prises, t he Leadership Co unsel for Just ice and Aooount ability, Weaver Union School District, Merced Un ion High School Di strict, Merced City School District, and t he Merced Co unty Association of Govemmenl> were also provided wi h a not ice of at least 60 days.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
10-3
newspaper stating that its UWMP was being updated and a WSCP was prepared and that a public hearing would be conducted to take testimony from members of the community. A copy of this notification is included in Appendix C. The Draft 2020 UWMP and Draft WSCP were made available for public inspection at the City of Merced Public Works Department, located at 1776 Grogan Avenue. In addition, the City also posted a copy of the Draft 2020 UWMP and Draft WSCP on its website (www.cityofmerced.org). The notice of public hearing to the public is included in Appendix C.
10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10642:
…Prior to adopting either, the [plan or water shortage contingency plan], the urban water supplier shall make both the plan and the water shortage contingency plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing or hearings thereon.
Water Code Section 10608.26
(a) In complying with this part, an urban retail water supplier shall conduct at least one public hearing to accomplish all of the following:
(1) Allow community input regarding the urban retail water supplier’s implementation plan for complying with this part.
(2) Consider the economic impacts of the urban retail water supplier’s implementation plan for complying with this part.
(3) Adopt a method, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 10608.20 for determining its urban water use target.
10.3.1 Public Hearing
A public hearing for the UWMP and WSCP was held on August 16, 2021, at the City Council Chamber. The hearing provided an opportunity for the City’s customers, residents, and employees to learn and ask questions about the current and future water supply of the City. The plan adoption by City Council occurred on August 16, 2021. The City Resolution is included in Appendix L.
10.3.2 Adoption
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10642:
…After the hearing or hearings, the plan or water shortage contingency plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.
This UWMP was adopted by the City Council on August 16, 2021. The WSCP was adopted by the City Council on August 16, 2021. A copy of the adopted resolutions is provided in Appendix L.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
10-4
10.4 Plan Submittal
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10621:
(e) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021… CWC Section 10644:
(a)(1) An urban water supplier shall submit to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies a copy of its plan no later than 30 days after adoption.
CWC Section 10635:
(c) The urban water supplier shall provide that portion of its urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this article to any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 60 days after the submission of its urban water management plan.
10.4.1 Submitting a UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR A copy of this 2020 UWMP will be submitted electronically to DWR within 30 days of adoption.
10.4.2 Electronic Data Submittal
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10644 (a)(2):
The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department … shall be submitted electronically and shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified by the department.
This 2020 UWMP, including the WSCP, and associated data will be submitted electronically to DWR using the WUEdata submittal tool.
10.4.3 Submitting a UWMP, including WSCP, to the California State Library The 2020 UWMP, including the WSCP, will be submitted on CD or hardcopy format to the California State Library within 30 days of adoption.
10.4.4 Submitting a UWMP to Cities and Counties
The 2020 UWMP will be submitted in electronic format to the Merced County and MID within 30 days of adoption.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
10-5
10.5 Public Availability
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10645:
(a) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. (b) Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Within 30 days of submitting the UWMP to DWR, the adopted UWMP will be available for public review during normal business hours at the City of Merced Public Works Department. The City will also post a copy of the adopted UWMP on its website (www.cityofmerced.org).
10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10621 (c):
An urban water supplier regulated by the Public Utilities Commission shall include its most recent plan and water shortage contingency plan as part of the supplier’s general rate case filings.
The City is not regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10621:
(d) The amendments to, or changes in, the plan shall be adopted and filed in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
CWC Section 10644:
(a)(1) Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be submitted to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies within 30 days after adoption.
10.7.1 Amending a UWMP
The plan may be updated at any time when the urban water supplier believes significant changes have occurred in population, land use, and/or water sources that may affect the contents of the plan. If major changes are made to this 2020 UWMP, the City will hold an additional public hearing and City Council will re-adopt the plan. Copies of amendments or changes to the plan shall be submitted to DWR, the California State Library, Merced County, and MID within 30 days of adoption.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
10-6
10.7.2 Amending a Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Legal Requirements:
CWC Section 10644 (b):
If an urban water supplier revises its water shortage contingency plan, the supplier shall submit to the department a copy of its water shortage contingency plan prepared…no later than 30 days after adoption, in accordance with protocols for submission and using electronic reporting tools developed by the department.
If the City revises the WSCP after DWR has approved the 2020 UWMP, copies of amendments or changes to the plans will be submitted electronically to DWR through the WUEdata Portal within 30 days of its adoption.
Copies of the amended WSCP will also be sent to the California State Library, Merced County, and MID within 30 days of adoption.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
City of Merced
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
August 2021
11-1
11 References
[1] University of California Merced 2020 Long-Range Development Plan, March 2020. [2] Merced County Forecast Summary, Eberhardt School of Business Center for Business & Policy Research, July 7, 2016.
[3] UC Merced 2020 Long Range Development Plan Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, March 2020.
[4] UC Merced Tomorrow Long Range Development Plan, Amended April 2017. [5] Merced General Plan 2030, Final, January 2012.
[6] 2018 Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update, Woodard & Curran, February 2019.
[7] California’s Groundwater Update 2020, Bulletin 118, Draft, March 2021. [8] City of Merced Water Master Plan, AECOM, 2017.
BLACKWIAT ,-.-- coNsuLTING ENGINEERS, INC.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX C
MERCED GATEWAY WSA – CONSISTENCY WITH DWR GUIDELINES
Merced Gateway WSA – Consistency with DWR Guidelines
Guidelines Section Number and
Title (DWR, 2003)
Guidelines Direction Relevant WSA Section and
Response
Section 1 (page 2). Does SB 610
or SB221 apply to the proposed
project?
Is the project subject to SB 610?
Is the project subject to CEQA
(Water Code §10910(a)? If yes,
continue.
WSA Section 1.1. Yes, the
project is subject to SB610 and
CEQA.
Is it a “Project” as defined by
Water Code §10912(a) or (b)?
If yes, to comply with SB 610 go
to Section 2.0, page 4.
WSA Section 1.1. Yes, the
Project is considered to meet
the definition of “project” per
Water Code §10912(a) or (b).
Is the project subject to SB 221?
Does the tentative map include
a “subdivision” as defined by
Government Code
§66473.7(a)(1)? If no, stop.
Yes
Section 2.0 (page 4). Who will
prepare the SB 610 analysis?
Is there a public water system
(“water supplier”) for the
project (Water Code
§10910(b)? If no, go to Section
3.0, page 6.
WSA Section 2.1. Yes, the
project site will connect to a
public water system.
Section 3.0 (page 6). Has an
assessment already been
prepared that includes this
project?
Has this project already been
the subject of an assessment
(Water Code §10910(h)? If no,
go to Section 4.0, page 8.
No, the Project has not been the
subject of an assessment.
Section 4.0 (page 8). Is there a
current Urban Water
Management Plan?
Is there an adopted urban water
management Plan (Water Code
§10910(c)? If yes, continue. If
yes, the information from the
UWMP related to the proposed
water demand for the project
may also be used for carrying
out Section 5.0, Steps 1 and 2,
Section 7; proceed to Section 5,
page 10 of the Guidelines.
Yes, there is an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) for
the proposed project location
described in WSA Section 3.2.
Is the project water demand for
the project accounted for in the
most recent UWMP (Water
Code §10910(c)(2)? If no, go to
Section 5.0, page 10.
Yes
Section 5.0 (page 10). What
information should be included
in an assessment?
Step One (page 13).
Documenting wholesale water
supplies.
The Project is not a retail water
supplier and would not include
the use of wholesale water
supplies.
Step Two (page 17).
Documenting Supply if
Groundwater is a Source.
The proposed water supply
wells are located within the City
of Merced. WSA Sections 1.3,
2.3 and 3.2.
Guidelines Section Number and
Title (DWR, 2003)
Guidelines Direction Relevant WSA Section and
Response
Specify if a groundwater
management plan or any other
specific authorization for
groundwater management for
the basin has been adopted and
how it affects the water
supplier’s use of the basin.
WSA Section 3.2
The water supply wells are
located within the Merced
Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies which includes the
City of Merced.
Description and analysis of the
amount and location of
groundwater pumped by the
water supplier for the past five
years. Include information on
proposed pumping locations
and quantities. The description
and analysis is to be based on
information that is reasonably
available, including, but not
limited to, historic use records
from DWR.
City of Merced historic records
are included in WSA Section 3.0.
WSA Section 1.3 provides a
description of the Project’s
water requirements.
Analysis of the location,
amount, and sufficiency of
groundwater that is projected
to be pumped by the water
supplier.
WSA Section 3.2. The quantity
of water available in the City of
Merced is sufficient for the
Project.
Step 3 (page 21). Documenting
project demand (Project
Demand Analysis).
WSA Section 1.3. Addresses the
Project water demands
Step 4 (page 26). Documenting
dry year(s) supply.
WSA Section 3.2. Addresses
water supply availability
including during dry years.
Step 5 (page 31). Documenting
dry year(s) demand.
WSA Section 3.2 addresses
annual demands, including dry
year scenarios.
Section 6.0 (page 33). Is the
projected water supply
sufficient or insufficient for the
proposed project
WSA Section 4.0 summarizes
how the identified water
supply/supplies are considered
sufficient for the Project.
Section 7.0 (page 35). If the
projected supply is determined
to be insufficient.
Does the assessment conclude
that supply is “sufficient”? If no,
continue.
WSA Section 4.0 concludes that
sufficient water supplies are
available for the Project.
Section 8.0 (page 38). Final SB
610 assessment actions by lead
agencies.
The lead agency shall review
the WSA and must decide
whether additional water
supply information is needed
for its consideration of the
proposed project. The lead
agency “shall determine, based
on the entire record, whether
projected water supplies will be
The WSA for the Project must
be approved prior to or in
concurrence with the EIR.
Guidelines Section Number and
Title (DWR, 2003)
Guidelines Direction Relevant WSA Section and
Response
sufficient to satisfy the demands
of the project, in addition to
existing and planned future
uses.”
The description of the
groundwater basin may be
excerpted from the
groundwater management plan,
from DWR Bulleting 118,
California’s Ground Water, or
from some other document that
has been published and that
discusses the basin boundaries,
type of rock that constitutes the
aquifer, variability of the
aquifer material, and total
groundwater in storage
(average specific yield times the
volume of the aquifer).
WSA Section 2.2 provides a
description of the groundwater
basin characteristics using all
available resources, including
DWR Bulletin 118.
In an adjudicated basin the
amount of water the urban
supplier has the legal right to
pump should be enumerated in
the court decision.
Basin is not adjudicated.
The Department of Water
Resources has projected
estimates of overdraft, or
“water shortage”, based on
projected amounts of water
supply and demand (basin
management) are projected by
the Watermaster agency
(AVEK) in WSA Section 3.2, the
hydrologic region level in
Basin groundwater resources
are discussed in WSA Section
2.3. Bulletin 160, California Water
Plan Update. Estimates at the
basin or subbasin level will be
projected for some basins in
Bulletin 118. If the basin has
not been evaluated by DWR,
data that indicate groundwater
level trends over a period of
time should be collected and
evaluated.
If the evaluation indicates an
overdraft due to existing
groundwater extraction, or
WSA Section 3.2. The
referenced and Appendicized
City of Merced 2020 Urban
Guidelines Section Number and
Title (DWR, 2003)
Guidelines Direction Relevant WSA Section and
Response
projected increases in
groundwater extraction,
describe actions and/or
program designed to eliminate
the long term overdraft
condition.
Water Master Plan describes in
detail the subject actions and
programs.
APPENDIX F
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
MERCED GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
MERCED, CALIFORNIA
WJVA Project No. 24-31
PREPARED FOR
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
8080 NORTH PALM AVENUE, SUITE 110
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711
PREPARED BY
WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.
VISALIA, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 22, 2024
113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 ■
■■ ■
■■■■■■
■■■ ■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■ ■
wjv acoustics
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 2
INTRODUCTION
The project, Merced Gateway, is a proposed 587‐lot single‐family residential development, to be located in Merced, California. The project site is located east of S. Coffee Street (and east of the future alignment of Plum Drive), south of Gerrard Avenue and north of Mission Avenue. The project site is dissected by Campus Parkway. The project would also include an approximate 3.7‐ acre parcel at the northeast portion of the project site, to be used as a park.
This analysis, prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA), is based upon a project site plan provided by the applicant, traffic data provided by the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) and the findings of on‐site noise level measurements. Revisions to the site plan may affect the findings and recommendations of this report. The site plan is provided as Figure 1.
Appendix A provides a description of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported are in A‐weighted decibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighting, as it provides a high degree of correlation with human annoyance and health effects. Appendix B provides typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources.
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 3
NOISE EXPOSURE CRITERIA
CITY OF MERCED
General Plan
The Noise Element of The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan1 (revised 6/20/12) sets noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sources in terms of the Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) to describe noise exposure for noise compatibility planning purposes. Both the Ldn and CNEL represent the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The CNEL includes an additional penalty of 5 dB (technically 4.77 dB) that is added to noise levels occurring during the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Both the Ldn and CNEL represent cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions.
The Ldn and CNEL are considered to be equivalent descriptors of the community noise environment for the purposes of this study.
Policy N‐1.4 of the noise element establishes land use compatibility criteria for exterior and interior residential spaces.
Policy N‐1.4 states “A maximum of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL for exterior noise level for residential projects proximate to major road way and railroad corridors. For other arterial, collector and local streets a maximum of 60 dB Ldn/CNEL exterior noise with a maximum of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL when all the best available noise‐reduction techniques have been exhausted without achieving 60 dB, and the strict application of such a maximum becomes a hindrance to development needed or typical for an area.”
The City of Merced noise compatibility matrix, for transportation noise sources, is provided below as Table I. Table II provides the City of Merced noise level standards for non‐transportation (stationary) noise sources. These nose standards typically apply to outdoor activity areas.
Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single‐family residences, individual patios or decks of multi‐family developments and common outdoor recreation areas of multi‐family developments. The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation.
Additionally, Policy N‐1.4 of the noise element requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior transportation noise sources not exceed 45 dB Ldn. The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep. 24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 4
Table I: NOISE COMPATABILITY MATRIX (TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES) Land Use Category
RESIDENTIAL
TRANSIENT LODGING
MOTELS, HOTELS
SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES,
CHURCHES, HOSPITALS,
NURSING HOMES
UDITORIUMS, CONCERT
HALLS, AMPHITHEATERS
SPORTSAREA,OUTDOOR
SPECTATOR SPORTS
PLAYGROUNDS,
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
GOLF COURSES, RIDING
STABLES, WATER
RECREATION, CEMETERIES
OFFICE BUILDINGS,
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
ND PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL,
MANUFACTURING, UTILITIES,
GRICULTURE
55 NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory , based upon
the assumption that any buildings involved are
of normal conventional construction, without any
special noise requirements
I~~ CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be
undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements is made and needed
noise insulation features included in the design.
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, dB
60 65 70 75 80
r I I 1111 I NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be
discouraged. If new construction or development
does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise
reduction requirement must be made and needed
noise insulation features included in the design.
CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development clearly should not
be undertaken.
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 5
TABLE II: Noise Exposure Thresholds – Non‐Transportation Noise Sources
TABLE II
NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS, dBA
CITY OF MERCED
Daytime (7 a.m.‐10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m.‐7 a.m.)
Leq Leq
55 45
Source: City of Merced Noise Element of General Plan
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 6
PROJECT SITE NOISE EXPOSURE
The project, Merced Gateway, is a proposed 587‐lot single‐family residential development, to be located in Merced, California. The project site is located east of S. Coffee Street (and east of the future alignment of Plum Drive), south of Gerrard Avenue and north of Mission Avenue. The project site is dissected by Campus Parkway. The project site is exposed to noise levels associated with vehicle traffic on these roadways.
The distance from the center of the individual residential lot backyards to the centerline of the roadways of concern are approximately as follows:
E. Gerrard Avenue: 70 feet
Campus Parkway: 100 feet
E. Mission Avenue: 75 feet
FHWA Traffic Noise Model‐
Noise exposure from traffic on E. Gerrard Avenue (west of Campus Parkway), Campus Parkway (east of Coffee Street) and Mission Avenue (east of Coffee Street) was calculated for existing and future (2046) conditions using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model and traffic data obtained from Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG). A description of the FHWA traffic noise model and methodology used for the analysis is provided below.
WJVA utilized the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108). The FHWA Model is a standard analytical method used for roadway traffic noise calculations. The model is based upon reference energy emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks (2 axles) and heavy trucks (3 or more axles), with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions, and is generally considered to be accurate within ±1.5 dB. To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution of traffic for a typical day and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume.
Noise level measurements and concurrent traffic counts were conducted by WJVA staff within the project site on May 21, 2024. The purpose of the measurements was to evaluate the accuracy of the FHWA Model in describing traffic noise exposure within the project site. Two traffic noise measurement sites were located along Campus Parkway (one on the north side of the roadway and one on the south side of the roadway) and one traffic noise measurement site was located within the project site, along the south side of Gerrard Avenue. Traffic volumes along Mission Avenue were too low at the time of the project site visit to accurately perform a model calibration noise measurement.
The speed limit posted in the project vicinity was 55 mph (miles per hour) along Campus Parkway and 35 mph along Gerrard Avenue. The project vicinity and noise monitoring site location are 24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 7
provided as Figure 2. Photographs of the Campus Parkway (north side), Campus Parkway (south side) and Gerrard Avenue traffic noise measurement sites are provided as Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5, respectively.
Noise monitoring equipment consisted of Larson‐Davis Laboratories Model LDL‐820 sound level analyzer equipped with a B&K Type 4176 1/2” microphone. The equipment complies with the specifications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (Precision) sound level meters. The meter was calibrated in the field prior to use with a B&K Type 4230 acoustic calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The microphone was located on a tripod at 5 feet above the ground. The project site presently consists of undeveloped land and a portion is currently used for industrial purposes.
Noise measurements were conducted in terms of the equivalent energy sound level (Leq).
Measured Leq values were compared to Leq values calculated (predicted) by the FHWA Model using as inputs the traffic volumes, truck mix and vehicle speed observed during the noise measurements. The results of the comparison are shown in Table III.
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED
(FHWA MODEL) NOISE LEVELS
MERCED GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Campus Pkwy
(north side)
Campus Pkwy
(south side) Gerrard Ave
Measurement Start Time 2:30 p.m. 2:55 p.m. 3:20 p.m.
Observed # Autos/Hr. 372 492 216
Observed # Medium Trucks/Hr. 24 72 0
Observed # Heavy Trucks/Hr. 12 12 12
Observed Speed (MPH) 55 55 35
Distance, ft. (from center of roadway) 180 165 50
Leq, dBA (Measured) 52.3 55.4 59.9
Leq, dBA (Predicted) 58.5 61.0 60.8
Difference between Predicted and Measured Leq, dBA 6.2 5.6 0.9 Note: FHWA “soft” site assumed for calculations.
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.
From Table III it may be determined that the traffic noise levels predicted by the FHWA Model were approximately 6 dB higher than those measured for the conditions observed at the time of the noise measurements for along Campus Parkway. This overprediction of the model is due to topographic shielding of traffic noise as a result of the elevated roadway over the project site area. However, for the purpose of this analysis and offset was not applied to modeled traffic noise exposure levels, and noise exposure levels described along Campus Parkway should therefore be considered a worst‐case assessment.
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 8
Traffic noise levels predicted by the FHWA model were 0.9 dB higher that those measured for the conditions observed at the time of the noise measurement along Gerrard Avenue. This is considered to be reasonable agreement between the noise model and the noise measurements, and therefore no adjustments to the model are necessary along Gerrard Avenue.
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data for Gerrard Avenue, Campus Parkway and Mission Avenue, in the project vicinity was obtained from MCAG. Truck percentages and the day/night distribution of traffic were estimated by WJVA, based upon previous studies conducted in the project vicinity since project‐specific data were not available from government sources. Table IV, Table V and Table VI summarize annual average traffic data used to model noise exposure within the project site along Gerrard Avenue, Campus Parkway and Mission Avenue, respectively.
TABLE IV
TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
MERCED GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Gerrard Avenue
Existing Conditions 2046 Traffic Conditions
Annual Avenue Daily Traffic (AADT) 1,360 1,580
Day/Night Split (%) 90/10
Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph) 35
% Medium Trucks (% AADT) 2
% Heavy Trucks (% AADT) 1
Sources: MCAG
WJV Acoustics, Inc.
TABLE V
TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
MERCED GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Campus Parkway
Existing Conditions 2046 Traffic Conditions
Annual Avenue Daily Traffic (AADT) 4,280 6,980
Day/Night Split (%) 90/10
Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph) 55
% Medium Trucks (% AADT) 2
% Heavy Trucks (% AADT) 1
Sources: MCAG
WJV Acoustics, Inc.
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 9
TABLE VI
TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
MERCED GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mission Avenue
Existing Conditions 2046 Traffic Conditions
Annual Avenue Daily Traffic (AADT) 640 720
Day/Night Split (%) 90/10
Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph) 45
% Medium Trucks (% AADT) 2
% Heavy Trucks (% AADT) 1
Sources: MCAG
WJV Acoustics, Inc.
Exterior Noise Level Compliance‐
Using data from Table IV, Table V, and Table VI, the FHWA Model, annual average traffic noise exposure was calculated for the closest proposed residential lots from Gerrard Avenue, Campus Parkway and Mission Avenue. Table VII provides the noise exposure levels at these roadways for future 2046 traffic conditions, at the closest proposed residential setbacks from each roadway.
TABLE VII
MODELED TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, dB, Ldn
MERCED GATEWAY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Roadway Existing Conditions 2046 Conditions
Gerrard Avenue 53 54
Campus Parkway 60 62
Mission Avenue 52 52
Source: WJV Acoustics
MCAG
Reference to Table VII indicates that the traffic noise exposure at the closest residential setbacks to Campus Parkway would be approximately 60 dB Ldn for existing conditions and approximately 62 dB Ldn for future (2046) traffic conditions on Campus Parkway (based upon the traffic volumes provided by MCAG). Such noise exposure levels exceed the City of Merced exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn, and mitigation measures must be included in project design along Campus Parkway. Traffic noise levels at the closest proposed residential lots to both Gerrard Avenue and Mission Avenue would not be expected to exceed 60 dB Ldn (based upon the traffic volumes provided by MCAG) and mitigation measures are therefore not required for noise compliance along these roadways.
I
I I
I
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 10
Exterior Noise Level Compliance and Mitigation (Campus Parkway)‐ As described above, exterior noise levels at the closest proposed residential lots along Campus Parkway would be expected to exceed the City of Merced exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn for residential land uses, and therefore mitigation measures must be incorporated for project noise compliance. A sound wall will be required along the project site adjacent to Campus Parkway.
A sound wall insertion loss program based on the FHWA Model was used to calculate the insertion loss (noise reduction) provided by the proposed sound walls. The model calculates the insertion loss of a wall of given height based on the effective height of the noise source, height of the receiver, distance from the receiver to the wall, and distance from the noise source to the wall. The standard assumptions used in the sound wall calculations are effective source heights of 8, 2 and 0 feet above the roadway for heavy trucks, medium trucks, and automobiles, respectively. The standard height of a residential receiver is five (5) feet above the ground elevation. Additionally, Campus Parkway is elevated approximately 3‐4 feet above project site grade, adjacent to the project site areas.
Based upon the above‐described assumptions and method of analysis, the noise level insertion loss values for the proposed sound walls were calculated. The calculations indicated that the proposed 7‐foot sound wall along Campus Parkway would reduce exterior noise exposure at the residential lots adjacent to Campus Parkway by approximately 5 dB, with the resulting noise exposure of 57 dB Ldn. Such levels would not exceed the City of Merced exterior noise standard of 60 dB Ldn. The sound walls must be turned inward at lots 24, 25, 62, 74, 96 and 97, as indicated on Figure 1.
The above‐described sound walls would be effective at first‐floor receiver locations only. As such, if second‐floor balconies are included in the units adjacent to Campus Parkway, exterior noise levels within any second‐floor balconies would exceed the 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at the first row of lots adjacent to and facing toward Campus Parkway.
3.7‐Acre Park (Campus Parkway)‐
The project would also include the development of a park on an approximately 3.7‐acre parcel of land within the northeast portion of the project site. The City of Merced establishes an exterior noise exposure of up to 70 dB Ldn for park land uses as “normally acceptable”. Using the above‐ described FHWA traffic noise model, WJVA calculated the exterior noise exposure (as determined at the approximate center point of the overall park area) to be approximately 58 dB Ldn for existing traffic conditions and approximately 60 dB Ldn for future 2046 traffic conditions. Such levels do not exceed the City of Merced exterior noise compatibility criteria of 70 dB Ldn for park land uses.
Interior Noise Level Compliance‐
The interior noise level standard for the City of Merced is 45 dB Ldn. Worst‐case exterior project site noise exposure was determined to be approximately 62 dB Ldn for 2046 traffic conditions 24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 11
along Campus Parkway. This means that the proposed residential construction must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of approximately 17 dB (62‐45=17).
A specific analysis of interior noise levels was not performed. However, it may be assumed that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB if windows and doors are closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with City of Merced 45 dB Ldn interior standard at all proposed residential units. Requiring that it be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation means that air conditioning or mechanical ventilation will be required.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The 587‐lot single‐family residential development will comply with applicable City of Merced exterior and interior noise level criteria provided the following measures are incorporated into final project design.
A sound wall should be constructed to a minimum height of 7 feet above ground level along the project site frontage with Campus Parkway. The sound wall would reduce traffic noise exposure by approximately 5 dB at the closest lots to the roadway, resulting in an exterior noise level of approximately 57 dB Ldn withing the backyard of these single‐family residential lots. The sound walls must be turned inward at lots 24, 25, 62, 74, 96 and 97, as indicated on Figure 1. Suitable construction materials include concrete blocks, masonry, or stucco on both sides of a wood or steel stud wall. If two‐story construction is proposed for the first row of homes adjacent to Campus Parkway, the required sound wall would not reduce exterior noise levels at second‐floor receiver locations and exterior noise levels within individual balconies (if proposed) along the first row of homes facing Campus Parkway would exceed 60 dB Ldn. Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation should be installed in the units so that it will be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation purposes. 24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 12
The conclusions and recommendations of this acoustical analysis are based upon the best information known to WJV Acoustics Inc. (WJVA) at the time the analysis was prepared concerning the proposed site plan, traffic volumes and roadway configurations. Any significant changes in these factors will require a reevaluation of the findings of this report. Additionally, any significant future changes in motor vehicle technology, noise regulations or other factors beyond WJVA’s control may result in long‐term noise results different from those described by this analysis.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter J. Van Groningen
President
WJV:wjv
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24 13
FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN
PARSOr-1S AVENUE
LOTTING STUDY FOR 40' X 70' LOTS; OPTION #1
MERCED GATEWAY
MERCED, CALIFORNIA
Bn9bir.ieml9Gmq\1'1c.
• ;s,. _,;,;;& . ,;;-;; • . GGr·.- • .r ,=.
"N: '-'IO >,-.~• - :,,..._,,-,
(""') ->•- -· : w: ,,._ ..
SEf'TEMBER26, 2024
l -,-----------. LEGEND '
------------------- 1r- ~-=---=---=----=----- =-----=---=-- =--=--=-=-=-----=---=---- ~~PTTrn:'ifil~~ ~ ~ I
, __
- ---------
COMMERCIAL
45' X 85' LOTS
129 LOTS
40' X 70' LOTS
201 LOTS 25' X 95' LOTS 257 LOTS
TOT AL 587 LOTS
ACREAGE TABLE
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE= 73.7~
RESIDENTIAL AC = 59.7±
COMMERCIAL AC= 8.9±
OPEN SPACE = 4.6±
OFF-SITE RIGHT OF WAY
DEDICATION AC = 0.5±
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24
FIGURE 2: PROJECT SITE VICINITY AND TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24
FIGURE 3: CAMPUS PARKWAY NORTH, TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE 24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24
FIGURE 4: CAMPUS PARKWAY SOUTH, TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE 24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24
FIGURE 5: GERRARD AVENUE, TRAFFIC NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE 24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24
APPENDIX A
ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.
DECIBEL, dB: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).
DNL/Ldn: Day/Night Average Sound Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.
Leq: Equivalent Sound Level. The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.
Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.
NOTE: The CNEL and DNL represent daily levels of noise exposure averaged on an annual basis, while Leq represents the average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.
Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event.
Ln: The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval (L90, L50, L10, etc.). For example, L10 equals the level exceeded 10 percent of the time.
24‐31 (Merced Gateway Residential) 10‐22‐24
A-2
ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant levels of noise exposure. CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise.
NOISE LEVEL
REDUCTION (NLR): The noise reduction between indoor and outdoor environments or between two rooms that is the numerical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those areas or rooms. A measurement of “noise level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.
SEL or SENEL: Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level. The level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an aircraft overflight, with reference to a duration of one second.
More specifically, it is the time‐integrated A‐weighted squared sound pressure for a stated time interval or event, based on a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second.
SOUND LEVEL: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.
SOUND TRANSMISSION
CLASS (STC): The single‐number rating of sound transmission loss for a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs.
APPENDIXB
EXAMPLES OF SOUND LEVELS
NOISE SOURCE SOUND LEVEL
AMPLIFIED ROCK 'N ROLL ► 120 dB
JET TAKEOFF @ 200 FT ►
100 dB
BUSY URBAN STREET ►
80dB
FREEWAY TRAFFIC @ 50 FT ►
CONVERSATION @ 6 FT ► 60dB
TYPICAL OFFICE INTERIOR ►
SOFT RADIO MUSIC ► 40dB
RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR ►
WHISPER @ 6 FT ► 20dB
HUMAN BREATHING ►
0dB
SUBJECTIVE
DESCRIPTION
DEAFENING
VERY LOUD
LOUD
MODERATE
FAINT
VERY FAINT
APPENDIX G
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study
January 2025
Prepared by:
VRPA Technologies, Inc.
4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93722
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study
Study Team
Georgiena Vivian, President, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (559) 259-9257
Erik Ruehr, Dir. of Traffic Engineering, VRPA Technologies, Inc., [email protected], (858) 566-1766
Jeff Stine, Senior Transportation Planner, VRPA Technologies, Inc. [email protected], (858) 566-1766
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Description of the Region/Project 1-1
1.1.1 Project Access 1-1
1.1.2 Study Area 1-1
1.1.3 Study Scenarios 1-1
1.2 Methodology 1-5
1.2.1 Intersection Analysis 1-5
1.2.2 Queuing Analysis 1-5
1.3 Policies to Maintain Level of Service 1-5
2.0 Existing Conditions 2-1
2.1 Existing Traffic Counts and Roadway Geometrics 2-1
2.2 Existing Functional Roadway Classification System 2-1
2.3 Affected Streets and Highways 2-2
2.4 Level of Service 2-2
2.4.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis 2-2
2.4.2 Queuing Analysis 2-3
3.0 Traffic Impacts 3-1
3.1 Trip Generation 3-1
3.2 Trip Distribution 3-1
3.3 Project Traffic 3-1
3.4 Approved/Pending Project Traffic 3-5
3.5 Opening Year Traffic Conditions 3-5
3.6 Horizon Year 2046 Traffic Conditions 3-5
3.7 Impacts 3-5
3.7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis 3-5
3.7.2 Queuing Analysis 3-6
3.8 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT Analysis 3-6
4.0 Roadway Improvements 4-1
4.1 Roadway Improvements 4-1
4.2 Equitable Share Responsibility 4-1
Appendices
Appendix A – Traffic Counts
Appendix B – Synchro Worksheets
Appendix C – Approved/Pending Project Information
List of Tables
1-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions 1-7 1-2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions 1-8 2-1 Existing Intersection Operations 2-7
2-2 Existing Queuing Operations 2-8
3-1 Project Trip Generation 3-1
3-2 Intersection Operations 3-13
3-3 Queuing Operations 3-14
4-1 Left Turn and Right Turn Storage Requirements 4-2
4-2 Horizon Year 2046 Equitable Share Responsibility 4-3 List of Figures
1-1 Regional Location 1-2
1-2 Project Location 1-3
1-3 Project Site Plan 1-4
2-1 Existing Lane Geometry 2-4
2-2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic 2-5
2-3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic 2-6
3-1 Trip Distribution 3-2
3-2 Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-3
3-3 Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-4
3-4 Opening Year 2025 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-7 3-5 Opening Year 2025 Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-8 3-6 Horizon Year 2046 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-9 3-7 Horizon Year 2046 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-10 3-8 Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic 3-11 3-9 Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic 3-12
E-1 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
Executive Summary
This Transportation Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared for the purpose of analyzing traffic conditions related to the proposed Merced Gateway Residential and Commercial Development (Project) in the City of Merced. The Project proposes to develop 587 dwelling units and 8.9 acres of local commercial development on a total of 53.8 acres of land. The Project is located at the northeast and southeast corners of Campus Parkway and Pluim Drive and is generally bounded by Gerard Avenue to the north and Mission Avenue to the South.
Vehicular access will be provided at driveways along Gerard Avenue, Pluim Drive, and Mission Avenue. The Project site plan (Figure 1-3) shows the approximate locations of the proposed access points.
STUDY AREA
The following intersections included in this TIS were determined in consultation with City of Merced staff and include:
Intersections
1. Gerard Avenue and Pluim Drive
2. Gerard Avenue and Campus Parkway
3. Mission Avenue and State Route (SR) 99 SB Off Ramp
4. Mission Avenue and SR 99 NB Off Ramp
5. Campus Parkway and Pluim Drive (With Project Scenario Only)
6. Mission Avenue and Pluim Drive (With Project Scenario Only) Study Scenarios
The TIS completed for the Project includes level of service (LOS) analysis for the following traffic scenarios.
Existing Conditions
Opening Year Plus Project
Horizon Year 2046 Without Project
Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project
IMPACTS
Intersections
Table E-1 provides the intersection level of service analysis for the study intersections considering the study scenarios discussed above. The results of the analysis show that all the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service considering the City of Merced LOS E-2 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
criteria.
Table E-1
Intersection Operations
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
As discussed in Section 3.0 (Impacts), roadway improvements may be desirable to support the development of the Project, as well as to accommodate traffic increases related to overall growth in the study area.
Considering the results presented in Section 3.0, the following improvements may be implemented to accommodate traffic increases related to overall growth in the study area.
Recommended Improvements
Intersections
Mission Avenue at SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
Recommended improvements:
Horizon Year 2046 Without Project and Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project Conditions o Lengthen the northbound right storage pocket from 425 feet to 575 feet.
DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS AM 11.5 B 13.0 B 12.0 B 13.5 B PM 9.5 A 10.3 B 10.0 B 11.0 B AM 13.5 B 13.7 B 15.0 B 15.3 B PM 13.1 B 13.8 B 13.8 B 14.2 B AM 19.1 B 21.1 C 21.7 C 22.4 C PM 18.4 B 18.5 B 20.4 C 20.6 C AM 19.5 B 21.4 C 36.6 D 49.4 D PM 19.7 B 21.1 C 35.5 D 49.5 D
AM 25.4 C 26.5 C
PM 26.1 C 26.2 C AM 9.1 A 9.3 A
PM 9.3 A 9.5 S DELAY is measured i n s econds LOS = Level of Service / BOLD denotes LOS standard has been exceeded For signalized inters ections, delay results show the average for the entire inters ection. For one-way and two-way stop controlled i nters ections, delay res ults show the delay for the worst movement.
1 - With the changes brought about by SB 743, Caltrans no longer uses level of service to determine the need for transportati on i mprovements. Instead, the focus is on providing adequate facili ti es for pedestrians, bicycles , and transit as well as safety cons iderations for all transportation modes. Guidance i s provided in the Transportation Impact Study Guide dated May 20, 2020 and the Interim Land Devel opment and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practiti oners Guidance dated July 2020. This guidance was used in determining the need for roadway improvements on Caltrans faci li ties .
5. Campus Parkway / Pluim Dri ve (With Project Only) Signalized D
6. Miss ion Avenue / Pluim Drive (With Project Only) One-Way Stop Sign D
3. Miss ion Avenue / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp Signalized -- 1
4. Miss ion Avenue / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp Signalized -- 1
1. Gerard Avenue / Pluim Dri ve
One-Way Stop Sign
(Two-Way Stop w/
Project) D
2. Gerard Avenue / Campus Parkway Signalized D OPENING YEAR PLUS PROJECT HORIZON YEAR 2046 WITHOUT PROJECT HORIZON YEAR 2046 PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL TARGET LOS PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
E-3 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
The recommended storage pocket lengths considering the Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project scenario is presented in Table E-2.
Table E-2
Left Turn and Right Turn Storage Requirements
NB Left 2 @ 150 2 @ 150
NB Right 275 275
SB Left 2 @ 200 2 @ 200
SB Right 200 200
EB Left 2 @ 125 2 @ 125
EB Right 125 125
WB Left 2 @ 175 2 @ 175
WB Right 125 125
SB Left-Thru 950 950
SB Right 950 950
NB Left-Thru 425 425
NB Right 425 575
EB Left 325 325
WB Right 450 450
NB Left -- 150
NB Right -- 150
SB Left -- 150
SB Right -- 150
EB Left -- 150
EB Right -- 150
WB Left -- 150
WB Right -- 150
BOLD denotes change in queue storage length
4. Mis sion Avenue / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
5. Campus Parkway / Pluim Drive (With Project Only)
2. Gerard Avenue / Campus Parkway
3. Mis sion Avenue / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
HORIZON YEAR 2046
RECOMMENDED
QUEUE STORAGE
LENGTH (ft)
INTERSECTION
EXISTING QUEUE
STORAGE LENGTH (ft)
E-4 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Traffic Impact Study, Executive Summary
Equitable Share Responsibility
The Project may be required to contribute a fair share of the costs of improvements that are identified for the Horizon Year 2046 scenario. The intent of determining the equitable responsibility for the improvements identified above for the Horizon Year 2046 scenario is to provide a starting point for early discussions between the applicant and the City of Merced/Caltrans to address improvement equitability and to calculate the equitable share for mitigating impacts. The formula used to calculate the equitable share responsibility is as follows:
Equitable Share = (Project Trips)/(Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project Traffic – Existing Traffic) Table E-3 shows the Project’s equitable fair share responsibility on a percentage basis for improvements as described above.
Table E-3
Horizon Year 2046 Equitable Share Responsibility
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis was conducted according to the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (MCAG/LSA 2022). For mixed-use projects, the guidelines recommend analyzing each land use individually while taking credit for internal trip capture. Using this methodology, it was concluded that each component of the project and the project as a whole has a less than significant VMT impact and no mitigation measures are needed.
INTERSECTION
PEAK
HOUR EXISTING PROJECT TRIPS
HORIZON YEAR
2046 PLUS
PROJECT
FAIR SHARE
PERCENTAGE
AM 218 28 583 7.7%
PM 232 58 678 13.0%
1: Northbound right-turn volumes only
4. Mission Avenue at SR 99 NB Off-Ramp1
1-1 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Description of the Region/Project
This Transportation Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared for the purpose of analyzing traffic conditions related to the proposed Merced Gateway Residential and Commercial Development (Project) in the City of Merced. The Project proposes to develop 587 dwelling units and 8.9 acres of local commercial development on a total of 53.8 acres of land. The Project is located at the northeast and southeast corners of Campus Parkway and Pluim Drive and is generally bounded by Gerard Avenue to the north and Mission Avenue to the South. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show the location of the Project along with major roadways in the Project area. The Project site plan is provided in Figure 1-3.
1.1.1 Project Access
Site access will be provided at driveways along Gerard Avenue, Pluim Drive, and Mission Avenue.
The Project site plan (Figure 1-3) shows the approximate locations of the proposed access points.
1.1.2 Study Area
The following intersections included in this TIS were determined in consultation with City of Merced staff and include:
Intersections
1. Gerard Avenue and Pluim Drive
2. Gerard Avenue and Campus Parkway
3. Mission Avenue and State Route (SR) 99 SB Off Ramp
4. Mission Avenue and SR 99 NB Off Ramp
5. Campus Parkway and Pluim Drive (With Project Scenario Only)
6. Mission Avenue and Pluim Drive (With Project Scenario Only)
1.1.3 Study Scenarios
This TIS includes level of service (LOS) analysis for the following traffic scenarios (Study Scenarios):
Existing Conditions
Opening Year (2025) Plus Project Conditions
Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions
Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project Conditions
1-2 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Regional Location
•
Manteca Yosemite National Park
Modesto .., 0 ~ ---~""'
CA?res
Turlock
Merced •
....
Sierra Nal.Jonal Forest
Madera
Clovis
Fresno
Din°uba
Hanford Visalia 0
Porterville
Coalinga D
Delano
Paso Robles
"
San ~ LUIS Bakersfield
Obispo
Santa Marla
Lompoc f§
0 I LEGEND * Pmject LocaUoc
•
Inyo Nauonal Forest
•
Sequoia National Forest
Lancaster b
Palmdale
Figure
1-1
Ridgecresl 0
~ J.:.. v'RPATECHNOlOGIU INC.
1-3 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Project Location
Mission Ave
LEGEND
■ Project Location 0 Study Intersection
::c
(II
DI
'<
;o
a.
=:= UPRR ·--- ·-- Future
Roadway
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
1-2
~ J.:.. v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
1-4 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Project Site Plan
Figure
1-3
COMMERCIAL
45'X 85' LOTS
126 LOTS
40' X 65' LOTS
211 LOTS
25'X95'LOTS
252LOTS
TOTAL 589 LOTS
ACREAGE TABLE
TOTAL.SllE Aa!EAGE • 73.2:t
NET IIESIDENIIAL N; = 91.0:t
COMMEJlCIAI.AC = 1.9:t
OfF.SllE FIGHT OF WAY
CEDICATION N; • 3.3:!:
1,0 + ,s a ~o
N ;.;I I 1" = '8!'
~ J..,,_
v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
1-5 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
1.2 Methodology
When preparing this TIS, guidelines set by the City of Merced were followed. In analyzing street and intersection capacities, LOS methodologies from the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) were applied. The City of Merced LOS standards were applied to quantitatively assess the performance of study area intersections and roadway segments. In addition, safety concerns were considered when determining the need for appropriate mitigation resulting from increased traffic near sensitive uses.
1.2.1 Intersection Analysis
Intersection LOS analysis was conducted using the Synchro 11 software program. Synchro 11 supports HCM 6th Edition methodologies and is an acceptable program by City of Merced staff for assessment of traffic impacts. Levels of Service can be determined for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Three of the existing study intersections are currently signalized (Gerard Avenue at Campus Parkway, Mission Avenue at SR 99 SB Off Ramp and Mission Avenue at SR 99 NB Off Ramp) while one existing intersection is currently unsignalized (Gerard Avenue at Pluim Drive – One-Way Stop).
Tables 1-1 and 1-2 indicate the ranges in the amounts of average delay for a vehicle at signalized and unsignalized intersections for the various levels of service ranging from LOS “A” to “F”.
When an unsignalized intersection does not meet acceptable LOS standards, the investigation of the need for a traffic signal shall be evaluated. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (California MUTCD) introduces standards for determining the need for traffic signals. The California MUTCD indicates that the satisfaction of one or more traffic signal warrants does not in itself require the installation of a traffic signal. In addition to the warrant analysis, an engineering study of the current or expected traffic conditions should be conducted to determine whether the installation of a traffic signal is justified.
1.2.2 Queuing Analysis
Queuing analysis was performed at study intersections utilizing the Synchro 12 software program. This software aligns with the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition. Synchro provides queuing results in feet for signalized intersections while the 95th percentile queue for unsignalized intersections are expressed in number of vehicles.
1.3 Policies to Maintain Level of Service
An important goal is to maintain an acceptable level of service along the highway, street, and road network. To accomplish this, the City of Merced, Merced County, and Caltrans adopt minimum levels of service in an attempt to control congestion that may result as new 1-6 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
development occurs.
The City of Merced considers levels of service ‘D’ or better to be acceptable, while levels of service ‘E’ and ‘F’ are considered unacceptable. At unsignalized intersections where a substandard level of service exists, traffic signals would only be recommended if warrants for traffic signals are satisfied. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant doesn’t, in and of itself, require the installation of a traffic signal. Safety and/or the overall operation of the intersection should be the basis of the installation of a traffic signal. Other improvements, such as the installation of dedicated left/right turning movements, should also be considered for the purpose of alleviating substandard levels of service at an intersection.
The 2030 Merced County General Plan establishes measures of performance for the county roadway systems. The General Plan identifies LOS ‘D’ during weekday peak hours in urban area and for rural connectors between urban areas (including freeways) and LOS ‘C’ for other rural roadways.
With the changes brought about by SB 743, Caltrans no longer uses level of service to determine the need for transportation improvements. Instead, the focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for all transportation modes.
Guidance is provided in the Transportation Impact Study Guide dated May 20, 2020, and the Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance dated July 2020. This guidance was used in determining the need for roadway improvements on Caltrans facilities.
1-7 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Table 1-1
Signalized Intersections Level of Service Definitions
(Highway Capacity Manual)
AVERAGE TOTAL
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION DELAY (sec/veh)
A
B
C
D
Describes operations with very low delay. Thi s level of service occurs when there is no conflicting traffic for a minor street.
Desc ribes operations with moderately low delay. This level genera ll y occurs with a small amount of conflicting traffic causing higher levels of average delay.
Describes operations with average delays. These hi gher delays may result from a moderate amount of minor street traffic. Queues begin to get longer.
Descri bes a crowded operation, with below average delays. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Lon ger delays may result from shorter gaps on the mainline and an increa se of minor street traffic. The queues of vehic les are increasing.
Describes operations at or near capacity. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limi t of acceptable delay. These high delay va lues genera ll y indicate poor gaps for the minor street to cross and large queues.
Desc ribes operations that are at the fai I ure point. Thi s level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over- saturation, that is, when arriva I flow rates exceed the ca pa city of the intersection. Insufficient gaps of suitable size exist to allow minor traffic to cross the intersection safely.
Sl0.0
> 10.0 • 20.0
> 20.0 • 35.0
> 35.0 • 55.0
> 55.0 • 80.0
> 80.0
1-8 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Introduction
Table 1-2
Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Definitions (Highway Capacity Manual)
AVERAGE TOTAL
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION DELAY (sec/veh)
A
B
C
D
No delay for stop-controll ed approaches .
Desc ribes operations with minor delay.
Describes operations with moderate delays.
Desc ribes operations with some delays.
Desc ribes operations with high delays and long queues.
Desc ribes operations with extreme congestion, with very hi gh del ays and long queues una cceptabl e to most drivers.
~II
~II -- p _ • ••
-.. iii __ ..
0-10.0
> 10.0 -15.0
> 15.0 -25.0
> 25.0 -35.0
> 35.0 -50.0
> 50.0
2-1 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
2.0 Existing Conditions
2.1 Existing Traffic Counts and Roadway Geometrics
The first step toward assessing Project traffic impacts is to assess existing traffic conditions.
Existing AM and PM peak hour turning movements were collected at each study intersection by National Data and Surveying Services. Intersection turning movement counts were conducted for the peak hour periods of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM for study intersections on Tuesday, August 20, 2024. Traffic count data worksheets are provided in Appendix A. The day on which counts were taken is representative of typical traffic volumes within the study area. Schools were in session and the weather was mild.
2.2 Existing Functional Roadway Classification System
Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the type of service they are intended to provide. Fundamental to this process is the recognition that individual streets and highways do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads.
The current hierarchical system of roadways within the study area consists of the following four (4) basic classifications:
State Freeways and Highways – Freeways and highways provide for high volume, high speed, and interregional travel with limited local access via widely spaced interchanges (1-mile minimum). Freeway access is limited to designated interchanges; no direct access to adjacent land uses is permitted for any use.
Arterials – Arterials are intended to: (a) provide a high level of capacity in selected high volume corridors; (b) provide connections between the freeway system and arterials and collector streets via interchanges; and (c) provide access to major traffic generators. Arterials are moderate-speed through streets with average daily traffic over 10,000 vehicles per day.
Access to an arterial should be primarily accomplished through primary collector and secondary collector streets.
Collectors – Collector streets are intended to transfer traffic from collector and minor streets to an arterial. Average daily traffic on a primary collector will usually average less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Collector streets should provide direct linkages to neighborhood shopping areas. Collector intersections should be staggered to discourage their use as through access ways by-passing arterials.
Local Streets – Roadways which provide direct access to abutting property and connect with other local roads, collectors, and arterials. Local roads are typically developed as two-lane 2-2 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
undivided roadways. Access to abutting private property and intersecting streets shall be permitted.
2.3 Affected Streets and Highways
Street and highway intersections near and adjacent to the Project site were analyzed to determine levels of service utilizing HCM-based methodologies described previously. The study intersections included in this TIS are listed below.
Intersections
1. Gerard Avenue and Pluim Drive
2. Gerard Avenue and Campus Parkway
3. Mission Avenue and State Route (SR) 99 SB Off Ramp
4. Mission Avenue and SR 99 NB Off Ramp
5. Campus Parkway and Pluim Drive (With Project Scenario Only)
6. Mission Avenue and Pluim Drive (With Project Scenario Only) The existing lane geometry at study area intersections is shown in Figure 2-1. Three of the existing study intersections are currently signalized (Gerard Avenue at Campus Parkway, Mission Avenue at SR 99 SB Off Ramp and Mission Avenue at SR 99 NB Off Ramp) while one existing intersection is currently unsignalized (Gerard Avenue at Pluim Drive – One-Way Stop). Figures 2-2 and 2-3 show existing traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours in the study area.
2.4 Level of Service
2.4.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis
All intersection LOS analyses were estimated using Synchro 11 Software. Various roadway geometrics, traffic volumes, and properties (peak hour factors, storage pocket length, etc) were input into the Synchro 11 Software program to accurately determine the travel delay and LOS for each study scenario. The intersection LOS and delays reported represent the HCM 6th Edition outputs. Synchro assumptions, listed below, show the various Synchro inputs and methodologies used in the analysis.
Lane Geometry
Storage lengths for turn lanes for existing intersections were obtained from aerial photos and rounded to the nearest 25 feet.
VRPA conducted a field study of the specified intersections and segments to verify lane geometry and intersection control as well as to obtain other pertinent data. Traffic Conditions
Peak hour factors (PHF) for each intersection approach were obtained from the traffic counts discussed in Section 2.1 and were utilized for Existing and Opening Year conditions. 2-3 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
For all future scenarios, a PHF of 0.92 was applied unless the existing PHF was greater than 0.92. The value of 0.92 was used because it is the default value recommended in the HCM.
Heavy vehicle percentages were based on the HCM default value of 3%. Heavy vehicle percentages at the SR 99 Off Ramps were based on Caltrans’ 2022 Annual Average Daily Truck Trips.
Roadway link speed limits were observed in the field and input into the Synchro network to determine roadway link speeds.
The results of the analysis show that all the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service considering the City of Merced LOS criteria. Table 2-1 shows the intersection LOS for the existing conditions. Synchro 11 (HCM 6th Edition) Worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
2.4.2 Queuing Analysis
Table 2-2 provides a queue length summary for left and right turn lane approaches at study intersections. As shown in Table 2-2, existing storage pocket lengths at study intersections adequately support the traffic volumes at existing study intersections. Queuing conditions for left and right-turn lanes at all study intersections are based upon Section 400 of Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual.
2-4 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Existing Lane Geometry
Mission Ave
LEGEND
■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection
,
,
I ,
,
I
G StopSign
§ Traffic Signal
• Gerard Ave
Campus Pkwy
J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway
Gerard Ave
iiffi
Mission Ave
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
2-1
~ J.:.. v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
2-5 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic
.. "00 No'l
J.. J._10
128
• Gerard Ave
15 _l_.
117
\..,.- 7-~\ ',,,
' '?,7-0 "'" ',
~ ',
'
'
~A'.., ', '• . ~ ~o 'd) -.. ~ '
q. ' ', '1'
\
' '• . ', .
'"'\, .
'• '•, . ',
·•,
Campus Pkwy
.. .. • .. .. Mission Ave .,,, - .. .. ~ ~ff'O ,
, '/1, \ 56~.,;0
,
, ~ \Jo\U , .> 0 , _,. o::'., ~ ,.,-- 7-<;:f!J :
~
o.J~ \,:---- :=426 t,f\1':1'& I
7-<o'o --;- 7.1
444
LEGEND
G StopSign J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
q- ~ ~ -----11
L 3
;~1 L.L. .. f 28
Gerard Ave
j
74 J iiffi
14- r---o'lo'l
on~N
90 - " t
• • • .
• • • •
\'\
..
,-u
.:
13 ·!a'
I
--- 26
Mission Ave
29 -+
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
2-2
~ ....... ■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC. 2-6 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic
.. (0
<D~
J.. J._25
76 • Gerard Ave
6~ ---1..
\...- \<::,"::i ',,,
,'l-1'o "'" ' ',
~ ',
'
'
~A'.., ', '• . '/l, tJ, 0 '0 -.. ~ '
q. ' ', '1'
\
' '• . ', .
'"'\, .
'• '•, . ',
·•,
Campus Pkwy
.. .. • .. .. Mission Ave .,,,-
.. ..
\ \ ssco<>?";",t
,
,
, cJ) \Jo\U~ ,
, "' ~ , 'f;, '1' ,.,-- \'l-A : 'J-<5' -p
~ )~ , ,:----
:=Joo t,f\1':1'& I
\'o?.--:-
?,9
417 =:
LEGEND
G StopSign J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
~r-- ~ ----- 9
L 4
..r~1 L.L. .. f 11
Gerard Ave
j
52 J iiffi
2 - "',-.. a "'(0""
34 - "" t
• • • .
• • • •
\'\
..
,-u
.:
13 ·!a'
I ---25
Mission Ave
31-+
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
2-3
~ J.:.. ■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC. 2-7 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Table 2-1
Existing Intersection Operations
DELAY LOS
AM 11.5 B
PM 9.5 A
AM 13.5 B
PM 13.1 B
AM 19.1 B
PM 18.4 B
AM 19.5 B
PM 19.7 B
DELAY is measured in seconds
LOS = Level of Service / BOLD denotes LOS s tandard has been exceeded For signalized inters ections , delay results show the average for the entire intersection. For one-way stop controlled inters ections, delay results show the delay for the wors t movement. 1 - With the changes brought about by SB 743, Caltrans no longer us es level of s ervice to determine the need for transportation improvements. Instead, the focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestrians , bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for all transportation modes. Guidance is provided in the Transportation Impact Study Guide dated May 20, 2020 and the Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance dated July 2020. This guidance was us ed in determining the need for roadway improvements on Caltrans facilities.
3. Mis sion Avenue / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp Signalized -- 1
4. Mis sion Avenue / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp Signalized -- 1
1. Gerard Avenue / Pluim Drive One-Way Stop Sign D
2. Gerard Avenue / Campus Parkway Signalized D
INTERSECTION CONTROL TARGET
LOS
PEAK
HOUR
EXISTING
2-8 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Existing Conditions
Table 2-2
Existing Queuing Operations
AM
Queue
PM
Queue
NB Left 2 @ 150 48 54
NB Right 275 19 25
SB Left 2 @ 200 2 56
SB Right 200 62 3
EB Left 2 @ 125 62 43
EB Right 125 75 28
WB Left 2 @ 175 23 9
WB Right 125 3 3
SB Left-Thru 950 148 217
SB Right 950 33 21
NB Left-Thru 425 25 24
NB Right 425 182 193
EB Left 325 37 38
WB Right 450 201 129
Queue is measured in feet / BOLD denotes exceedance
4. Mis sion Avenue / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
2. Gerard Avenue / Campus Parkway
3. Mis sion Avenue / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
INTERSECTION
EXISTING QUEUE
STORAGE LENGTH (ft)
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
3-1 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
3.0 Traffic Impacts
This chapter provides an assessment of traffic and the impact on the surrounding street system.
3.1 Trip Generation
To assess the impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding roadway network, the first step is to determine Project trip generation. Project trip generation was determined using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) and the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition). The considerations described above led to the recommended trip generation for weekday AM (7:00-9:00am) and PM (4:00- 6:00pm) peak hours shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Project Trip Generation
3.2 Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution percentages for the Opening Year and the Horizon Year 2046 scenarios are shown in Figure 3-1. These percentages are based upon knowledge of the study area, engineering judgement, prevailing traffic patterns in the study area, major routes, population centers, and other existing development.
Site access will be provided at driveways along Gerard Avenue, Pluim Drive, and Mission Avenue.
The Project site plan (Figure 1-3) shows the approximate locations of the proposed access points.
3.3 Project Traffic
Project traffic as shown in Table 3-1 was distributed to the roadway system using the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 3-1. The graphical representation of the resulting AM and PM peak hour Project trips used is shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3.
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Single Family Residential (210) 587 Units 8.75 5,141 0.70 25:75 93 280 373 0.94 63:37 330 195 525 Shopping Plaza (821) 49,550 Sf 67.52 3,346 1.73 62:38 53 33 86 5.19 49:51 126 131 257 Office (710) 49,550 Sf 10.84 630 1.52 88:12 81 11 92 1.44 17:83 16 77 93 9,117 227 324 551 472 403 875
912 23 32 55 47 40 88
1,004 16 10 26 38 39 77
TOTAL EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION 7,202 188 282 470 387 323 710 VOLUME
Internal Vehicle Trips (10%)
Passby Trips/Retail Only (30%)
VOLUME RATE IN:OUT SPLIT VOLUME RATE IN:OUT SPLIT
LAND USE/
ITE LAND USE CODE QUANTITY DAILY TRIP ENDS (ADT) WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR RATE
3-2 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Trip Distribution
Campus Pkwy
65%
- Mission Ave
LEGEND
■ Project Location ===== UPRR ~ % Trip Distribution %
G Study Intersection . - - - . - - Future Roadway
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-1
!20%
4%
Mission -Ave
~ J.... v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-3 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
\'2-1
<J> "'" 't).\<;:,,:;,,o(I
\
0~
Mission Ave
LEGEND
,
,
,
,'
,
,
,'
Campus Pkwy
~ 23 0 0 ~ -13 ~ a, o> I 21
JUL. • + § Campus Pkwy
-i~::!. ' 1Uf
6Q ~ CO N
G StopSign J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
_J
11 J
3 -
o-
~
LO
"' "' -L
2_1_.
2 ■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway i i ffi
0 LO CO st
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-2
Mission Ave
~ J.... v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-4 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
,~~
'o~ "'" 't).\<;:,,:;,,o(I
\
o'IP
Mission Ave
LEGEND
,
,
,
,'
,
,
,'
0 :•+
4 + . 15 I MO 0
I
Campus Pkwy
G StopSign J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
_J
13 J
3 -
o-
~
"' "'"' -L
■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway iiffi
O N O "' ~
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-3
Mission Ave
,-u
ie
13 ·!a'
I .L41
3 Mission Ave
~ J.... v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-5 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
3.4 Approved/Pending Project Traffic
Traffic impact analyses typically require the analysis of approved or pending developments that have not yet been built in the vicinity of the Project. The UC Merced Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), the University Vista project, the Virginia Smith Charitable Trust (VST) project, and Tentative Subdivision Map #1323 will add new trips to the study intersections being evaluated in this TIS. In addition, trips from various approved/pending projects as detailed in the UC Merced 2020 LRDP Traffic Impact Analysis (Fehr & Peers – August 2019) were also included in the analysis.
AM and PM peak hour trips from approved/pending projects were applied to the Opening Year and Horizon Year 2046 scenarios discussed later in the report. It should be noted that trips associated with the UC Merced Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), University Vista project, and Virginia Smith Charitable Trust (VST) project were only applied to the Horizon Year 2046 scenario.
3.5 Opening Year Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions with the Project in the Year 2025 were estimated by applying a growth rate of 2% per year to the existing traffic volumes which is consistent with the methodology provided in the Traffic Scoping Document prepared for the Project. In addition, AM and PM peak hour trips from approved/pending projects were manually added to study intersections. The resulting traffic for the Opening Year Plus Project scenario is shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
3.6 Horizon Year 2046 Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions with and without the Project in the Year 2046 (twenty-one years after Opening conditions) were estimated by applying a growth rate of 2% per year to the existing traffic volumes which is consistent with the methodology provided in the Traffic Scoping Document prepared for the Project. In addition, AM and PM peak hour trips from all approved/pending projects were manually added to study intersections. The resulting traffic for the Horizon Year 2046 Without Project scenario is shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7. Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project traffic conditions are reflected in Figures 3-8 and 3-9.
3.7 Impacts
3.7.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis
Table 3-2 provides the intersection level of service analysis for the study intersections considering the study scenarios discussed above. The results of the analysis show that all the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service considering the City of Merced LOS criteria.
3-6 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
3.7.2 Queuing Analysis
Table 3-3 provides a queue length summary for left and right turn lane approaches at study intersections. The queue lengths presented in Table 3-3 are based upon Section 400 of Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual.
Results of the queuing analysis shows that traffic at the northbound right approach for the Mission Avenue and SR 99 NB Off-Ramp intersection will exceed the existing 425-foot storage pocket during the AM and PM peak hour for the Horizon Year 2046 scenarios. Potential mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.
3.8 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis was conducted according to the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines (MCAG/LSA 2022). For mixed-use projects, the guidelines recommend analyzing each land use individually while taking credit for internal trip capture. The VMT analysis for each of the project’s three land uses (office, shopping plaza, and single-family residential) is described below:
For the office land use, the project site is located in a VMT-efficient area according to the VMT per Employee Screening Map for Merced County. Therefore, the office land use is screened out of further VMT analysis and has a less than significant VMT impact. The shopping plaza land use is considered to be a retail development that is screened out of further VMT analysis due to lane use type. Therefore, the shopping plaza land use has a less than significant VMT impact.
For the single-family residential land use, the project is located in an area that has less than the average VMT per capita but is above the VMT significance threshold of 85% of average VMT/capita or below. However, the project has an internal trip capture of 912 daily trips as compared to 5,141 daily trips generated by the single-family residential land use. After applying credit for internal trip capture, the trip generation of the single-family residential land use would be reduced by 17.7% (921/5,141). Therefore, the resulting VMT per capita for the single-family residential land use is 17.7% or more below average and meets the VMT threshold of at least 15% below average. Therefore, the shopping plaza land use has a less than significant VMT impact.
Since all three components of the project have a less than significant VMT impact, the project as a whole has a less than significant VMT impact and no mitigation measures are needed. 3-7 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Opening Year 2025 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
-,'o?
-,'!J? "'" 't).\<;:,,:;,,o(I
\
o';l, ,,.
Mission Ave
LEGEND
,
,
,
,'
,
,
,'
~+~ -+i~3 • Gerard Ave
15 121 +
8 ~ 23 0 0 ._ 424 ~a,<"> I 21
JUL. • + § Campus Pkwy
4;~ ::!. I 1 u f
6Q ~ (X) N
Campus Pkwy
G StopSign J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
_J
87J
17 -
92 -
~
<">N "'
-L
■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway i i ffi
00 00 N
"'"'"" st 0
DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-4
Mission Ave
...
ie
13 ·!a'
I .L31
29 Mission Ave
~ J.... v'RPA TECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-8 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Opening Year 2025 Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
Mission Ave
LEGEND
,, ... \
-,<:J? "'" 't).\<;:,,:;,,o(I
\
oi
,
,
,
,'
,
,
,'
5 :•+
67 + • 15 I MI.() l{)
I
~47 N st<'> ._ 278 ~~st I 43
JUL. • + § Campus Pkwy
1:~ ::!. I \ ti f __., l{) 'Q'" ...--
127 . 0 ~...-
Campus Pkwy
G StopSign J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
_J
66 J
s- 35 -
♦
"'..,. "'
-L
■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway iiffi
(D (l'.) 0
<D N ,q- ,q- 0
DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-5
Mission Ave
...
ie
13 ·!a'
I .L41
29 Mission Ave
~ J.... v'RPA TECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-9 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Horizon Year 2046 Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Mission Ave
LEGEND
,
,
,
,'
,
,
,'
23 __.1_.
181
G StopSign
J_ 15
198
Gerard Ave
Campus Pkwy
J__ Intersection La ne Geometry
_J
114J
22 -
139 -
~
45 --+
■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway iiffi
00 LO <O
00 LO<'>
ro 0
DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-6
Mission Ave
--- 40
Mission Ave
~ J.... v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-10 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Horizon Year 2046 Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
Mission Ave
LEGEND
,
,
,
,'
,
,
,'
"' o, N
J..
G StopSign
J._39
117
Campus Pkwy
J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
_J
80 J
3 - 53 -
~
48 -+
■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway iiffi
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-7
Mission Ave
.__ 39
Mission Ave
~ J.... v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-11 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic
Mission Ave
LEGEND
<:,"-\
1<:.~ "'" 't).\<;:,,:;,,o(I
\
oi
,
,
,
,'
,
,
,'
~ -+ i~1
• Gerard Ave
23 183 + 8
~ 23 0 0 ._ 841 ~ a, o> I 21
JUL. • + § Campus Pkwy
8~g ::!. 1 1 u f
6Q ~ <D N
Campus Pkwy
G StopSign J_ Intersection Lane Geometry
_J
126 J
24 -
139 -
~
"' "'"' -L
■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway iiffi
0 DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-8
Mission Ave
...
ie
13 ·!a'
I .L31
43 Mission Ave
~ J.... v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-12 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic
Mission Ave
LEGEND
,
,
,
,'
,
,
,'
en+ ~ - + r~1
• Gerard Ave
8 100 + 15
Campus Pkwy
G StopSign J_ Intersection La ne Geometry
_J
93 J
6 -
53 -
~
LO "'..,.
-L
■ Project Location
0 Study Intersection § Traffic Signal UPRR • - - - • - Future Roadway iiffi
0 LO ID
0 I'- LO ~ro 0
DI
3 'ti
C
Ill
~
l
Figure
3-9
Mission Ave
,-u
ie
13 ·!a'
I .L41
42 Mission Ave
~ J.... v'RPATECHNOlOGIUINC.
3-13 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Table 3-2
Intersection Operations
DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS
AM 13.0 B 12.0 B 13.5 B
PM 10.3 B 10.0 B 11.0 B
AM 13.7 B 15.0 B 15.3 B
PM 13.8 B 13.8 B 14.2 B
AM 21.1 C 21.7 C 22.4 C
PM 18.5 B 20.4 C 20.6 C
AM 21.4 C 36.6 D 49.4 D
PM 21.1 C 35.5 D 49.5 D
AM 25.4 C 26.5 C
PM 26.1 C 26.2 C
AM 9.1 A 9.3 A
PM 9.3 A 9.5 S
DELAY is measured i n seconds
LOS = Level of Service / BOLD denotes LOS s tandard has been exceeded For signali zed inters ections, delay res ults show the average for the enti re inters ection. For one-way and two-way stop controlled intersections, dela y res ults show the delay for the worst movement.
1 - With the changes brought about by SB 743, Caltrans no l onger uses level of s ervice to determine the need for trans portation improvements . Ins tead, the focus is on providing adequate facilities for pedestrians , bicycles, and transit as well as safety considerations for all trans portation modes. Gui dance is provided in the Transportati on Impact Study Guide dated May 20, 2020 and the Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance dated July 2020. This guidance was us ed in determining the need for roadway improvements on Cal trans facilities.
5. Campus Parkway / Plui m Dri ve (With Project Only) Signalized D
6. Miss ion Avenue / Pluim Drive (Wi th Project Only) One-Way Stop Sign D
3. Miss ion Avenue / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp Signalized -- 1
4. Miss ion Avenue / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp Signalized -- 1
1. Gerard Avenue / Pluim Dri ve
One-Way Stop Sign
(Two-Way Stop w/
Project)
D
2. Gerard Avenue / Campus Parkway Signalized D
OPENING YEAR
PLUS PROJECT
HORIZON YEAR
2046 WITHOUT
PROJECT
HORIZON YEAR
2046 PLUS
PROJECT INTERSECTION CONTROL TARGET
LOS
PEAK
HOUR
3-14 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Traffic Impacts
Table 3-3
Queuing Operations
AM
Queue
PM
Queue
AM
Queue
PM
Queue
AM
Queue
PM
Queue
NB Left 2 @ 150 48 55 73 83 73 83
NB Right 275 27 33 30 38 37 47
SB Left 2 @ 200 2 57 3 87 3 87
SB Right 200 69 16 95 4 102 17
EB Left 2 @ 125 73 55 95 67 105 78
EB Right 125 77 29 116 44 116 44
WB Left 2 @ 175 28 19 36 14 41 24
WB Right 125 3 3 4 5 4 5
SB Left-Thru 950 224 378 232 347 302 492
SB Right 950 34 22 52 33 52 33
NB Left-Thru 425 26 25 38 38 38 38
NB Right 425 212 252 463 517 486 565
EB Left 325 38 39 57 59 57 59
WB Right 450 321 259 321 207 426 328
NB Left -- 73 88 0 0 73 88
NB Right -- 23 34 0 0 23 34
SB Left -- 25 36 0 0 25 36
SB Right -- 84 101 0 0 84 101
EB Left -- 58 122 0 0 58 122
EB Right -- 50 106 0 0 50 106
WB Left -- 18 36 0 0 18 36
WB Right -- 19 39 0 0 19 39
Queue is measured in feet / BOLD denotes exceedance
2. Gerard Avenue / Campus Parkway
3. Mission Avenue / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
4. Mission Avenue / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
5. Campus Parkway / Pluim Drive (With Project Only)
INTERSECTION
EXISTING QUEUE
STORAGE LENGTH (ft)
OPENING YEAR
PLUS PROJECT
HORIZON YEAR
2046 WITHOUT
PROJECT
HORIZON YEAR
2046 PLUS
PROJECT
4-1 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Roadway Improvements
4.0 Roadway Improvements
4.1 Roadway Improvements
As discussed in Section 3.0 (Impacts), roadway improvements may be desirable to support the development of the Project, as well as to accommodate traffic increases related to overall growth in the study area.
Considering the results presented in Section 3.0, the following improvements may be implemented to accommodate traffic increases related to overall growth in the study area.
INTERSECTIONS
Mission Avenue at SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
Recommended improvements:
Horizon Year 2046 Without Project and Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project Conditions o Lengthen the northbound right storage pocket from 425 feet to 575 feet.
The recommended storage pocket lengths considering the Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project scenario is presented in Table 4-1.
It is recommended that the applicant’s team work with the City of Merced and Caltrans to determine whether any of the improvements described above would be appropriate for implementation as a condition of the Project or would be justification for the payment of fair share fees.
4.2 Equitable Share Responsibility
The Project may be required to contribute a fair share of the costs of improvements that are identified for the Horizon Year 2046 scenario. The intent of determining the equitable responsibility for the improvements identified above for the Horizon Year 2046 scenario is to provide a starting point for early discussions between the applicant and the City of Merced/Caltrans to address improvement equitability and to calculate the equitable share for mitigating impacts. The formula used to calculate the equitable share responsibility is as follows:
Equitable Share = (Project Trips)/(Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project Traffic – Existing Traffic) Table 4-2 shows the Project’s equitable fair share responsibility on a percentage basis for improvements as described above.
4-2 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Roadway Improvements
Table 4-1
Left Turn and Right Turn Storage Requirements
NB Left 2 @ 150 2 @ 150
NB Right 275 275
SB Left 2 @ 200 2 @ 200
SB Right 200 200
EB Left 2 @ 125 2 @ 125
EB Right 125 125
WB Left 2 @ 175 2 @ 175
WB Right 125 125
SB Left-Thru 950 950
SB Right 950 950
NB Left-Thru 425 425
NB Right 425 575
EB Left 325 325
WB Right 450 450
NB Left -- 150
NB Right -- 150
SB Left -- 150
SB Right -- 150
EB Left -- 150
EB Right -- 150
WB Left -- 150
WB Right -- 150
BOLD denotes change in queue storage length
4. Mis sion Avenue / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
5. Campus Parkway / Pluim Drive (With Project Only)
2. Gerard Avenue / Campus Parkway
3. Mis sion Avenue / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
HORIZON YEAR 2046
RECOMMENDED
QUEUE STORAGE
LENGTH (ft)
INTERSECTION
EXISTING QUEUE
STORAGE LENGTH (ft)
4-3 Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study, Roadway Improvements
Table 4-2
Horizon Year 2046 Equitable Share Responsibility
INTERSECTION
PEAK
HOUR EXISTING PROJECT TRIPS
HORIZON YEAR
2046 PLUS
PROJECT
FAIR SHARE
PERCENTAGE
AM 218 28 583 7.7%
PM 232 58 678 13.0%
1: Northbound right-turn volumes only
4. Mission Avenue at SR 99 NB Off-Ramp1
Merced Gateway Residential/Commercial Development
Transportation Impact Study Appendices
January 2025
Prepared by:
VRPA Technologies, Inc.
4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93722
Appendix A – Traffic Counts
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Pluim Dr & E Gerard Ave
City: Merced Project ID:
Control: 1-Way Stop(SB) Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 21 0 0 0 15 2 0 47
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 6 0 2 20 0 0 0 22 2 0 60
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 13 0 10 0 5 43 0 0 0 54 3 0 128
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 9 0 8 0 6 33 0 0 0 34 2 0 92
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 21 0 0 0 18 3 0 52
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 14 0 0 0 11 1 0 32
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 3 21 0 0 0 5 4 0 37
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 9 0 1 0 3 1 0 20
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 51 0 34 0 20 182 0 1 0 162 18 0 468 APPROACH %'s : 60.00% 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 9.85% 89.66% 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 90.00% 10.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 38 0 24 0 15 117 0 0 0 128 10 0 332 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.731 0.000 0.600 0.000 0.625 0.680 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.593 0.833 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 19 0 0 0 15 12 0 50
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 12 0 0 0 22 5 0 45
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 0 22 7 0 50
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 16 0 0 0 18 4 0 44
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 2 18 0 0 0 14 9 0 51
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 1 16 0 0 0 12 7 0 43
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 13 0 0 0 14 3 0 38
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 11 4 0 32
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 31 0 12 0 9 122 0 0 0 128 51 0 353 APPROACH %'s : 72.09% 0.00% 27.91% 0.00% 6.87% 93.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 71.51% 28.49% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 16 0 6 0 5 62 0 0 0 76 25 0 190
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.667 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.625 0.861 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.864 0.694 0.000 Data - Totals
Pluim Dr Pluim Dr E Gerard Ave E Gerard Ave
0.674 0.688 0.605
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
24-090093-001
8/20/2024
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.931 0.688 0.838 0.871
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.648
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Campus Pkwy & E Gerard Ave
City: Merced Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 7 47 4 0 0 62 8 0 10 3 22 0 7 1 0 0 171
7:15 AM 13 69 11 0 1 77 9 0 8 7 21 0 6 4 0 0 226
7:30 AM 14 95 4 0 0 97 38 0 22 5 35 0 5 5 2 0 322
7:45 AM 20 130 4 0 0 80 17 0 17 2 25 0 15 0 0 0 310
8:00 AM 10 119 4 0 1 75 10 0 27 0 9 0 2 2 1 0 260
8:15 AM 6 96 2 0 0 73 6 0 9 0 13 0 2 0 0 0 207
8:30 AM 6 71 2 0 0 61 7 0 13 1 13 0 1 0 0 0 175
8:45 AM 1 74 3 0 0 49 3 0 13 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 148
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 77 701 34 0 2 574 98 0 119 18 141 0 39 13 3 0 1819 APPROACH %'s : 9.48% 86.33% 4.19% 0.00% 0.30% 85.16% 14.54% 0.00% 42.81% 6.47% 50.72% 0.00% 70.91% 23.64% 5.45% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:15 AM 38 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 57 413 23 0 2 329 74 0 74 14 90 0 28 11 3 0 1118 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.713 0.794 0.523 0.000 0.500 0.848 0.487 0.000 0.685 0.500 0.643 0.000 0.467 0.550 0.375 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 17 83 9 0 1 61 13 1 14 1 7 0 1 1 1 0 210
4:15 PM 13 102 5 1 2 81 24 0 10 1 5 0 3 3 1 0 251
4:30 PM 16 111 5 0 1 67 16 0 15 1 6 0 5 4 2 0 249
4:45 PM 15 68 11 2 0 52 16 0 14 0 9 0 1 1 0 0 189
5:00 PM 18 86 9 0 0 79 11 0 13 0 14 0 2 1 1 0 234
5:15 PM 13 86 9 0 0 86 10 0 13 1 15 0 1 2 1 0 237
5:30 PM 11 68 5 1 5 95 16 0 7 2 10 0 1 1 0 0 222
5:45 PM 10 71 5 1 1 58 12 0 14 0 14 0 2 0 0 0 188
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 113 675 58 5 10 579 118 1 100 6 80 0 16 13 6 0 1780 APPROACH %'s : 13.28% 79.32% 6.82% 0.59% 1.41% 81.78% 16.67% 0.14% 53.76% 3.23% 43.01% 0.00% 45.71% 37.14% 17.14% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 62 367 30 3 3 279 67 0 52 2 34 0 11 9 4 0 923 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.861 0.827 0.682 0.375 0.375 0.861 0.698 0.000 0.867 0.500 0.607 0.000 0.550 0.563 0.500 0.000 24-090093-002
8/20/2024
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
0.919 0.875 0.815 0.815 0.545
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
0.868
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.800 0.750 0.718 0.700
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Totals
Campus Pkwy Campus Pkwy E Gerard Ave E Gerard Ave
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: SR 99/Golden State Hwy SB Ramps & E Mission Ave City: Merced Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 30 0 6 0 0 21 9 0 0 22 37 0 125
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 37 0 8 0 0 43 12 0 0 24 46 0 170
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 45 0 13 0 0 41 12 0 0 49 46 0 206
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 43 0 9 0 0 56 4 0 0 60 33 0 205
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 48 0 9 0 0 94 5 0 0 45 37 0 238
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 41 0 9 0 0 77 6 0 0 55 34 0 222
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 21 0 4 0 0 37 5 0 0 29 29 0 125
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 36 0 7 0 0 34 8 0 0 20 34 0 139
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 301 0 65 0 0 403 61 0 0 304 296 0 1430 APPROACH %'s : 82.24% 0.00% 17.76% 0.00% 0.00% 86.85% 13.15% 0.00% 0.00% 50.67% 49.33% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 177 0 40 0 0 268 27 0 0 209 150 0 871 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.922 0.000 0.769 0.000 0.000 0.713 0.563 0.000 0.000 0.871 0.815 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 55 2 7 0 0 52 10 0 0 35 41 0 202
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 73 1 3 0 0 44 8 0 0 33 48 0 210
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 70 2 8 0 0 45 12 0 0 34 50 0 221
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 57 0 7 0 0 41 9 0 0 22 44 0 180
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 54 0 4 0 0 62 4 0 0 31 37 0 192
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 58 1 18 0 0 47 3 0 0 32 49 0 208
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 46 0 14 0 0 30 11 0 0 41 40 0 182
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 50 0 10 0 0 27 3 0 0 32 33 0 155
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 463 6 71 0 0 348 60 0 0 260 342 0 1550 APPROACH %'s : 85.74% 1.11% 13.15% 0.00% 0.00% 85.29% 14.71% 0.00% 0.00% 43.19% 56.81% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 255 5 25 0 0 182 39 0 0 124 183 0 813 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.873 0.625 0.781 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.813 0.000 0.000 0.886 0.915 0.000 24-090093-004
8/20/2024
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
0.920 0.891 0.891 0.914
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.915
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.935 0.745 0.945
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Totals
SR 99/Golden State Hwy SB Ramps SR 99/Golden State Hwy SB Ramps E Mission Ave E Mission Ave National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: SR 99/Golden State Hwy NB Ramps & E Mission Ave City: Merced Project ID:
Control: Signalized Date:
NS/EW Streets:
0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 4 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 6 42 0 0 0 53 56 0 191
7:15 AM 5 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 8 75 0 0 0 68 57 0 262
7:30 AM 9 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 6 78 0 0 0 83 72 0 313
7:45 AM 10 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 12 89 0 0 0 84 68 0 332
8:00 AM 6 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 11 128 0 0 0 75 45 0 307
8:15 AM 5 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 15 106 0 0 0 84 56 0 308
8:30 AM 4 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 7 48 0 0 0 54 47 0 205
8:45 AM 5 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 11 62 0 0 0 53 38 0 212
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 48 0 385 0 0 0 0 0 76 628 0 0 0 554 439 0 2130 APPROACH %'s : 11.09% 0.00% 88.91% 0.00% 10.80% 89.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 55.79% 44.21% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 30 0 218 0 0 0 0 0 44 401 0 0 0 326 241 0 1260 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.750 0.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.733 0.783 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.970 0.837 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU
0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 6 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 14 89 0 0 0 70 43 0 284
4:15 PM 8 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 14 107 0 0 0 74 40 0 300
4:30 PM 10 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 10 105 0 0 0 73 43 0 305
4:45 PM 5 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 8 85 0 0 0 61 29 0 237
5:00 PM 8 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 20 101 0 0 0 62 51 0 281
5:15 PM 7 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 13 89 0 0 0 72 35 0 270
5:30 PM 10 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 9 68 0 0 0 72 43 0 246
5:45 PM 4 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 3 76 0 0 0 60 40 0 230
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 58 0 416 0 0 0 0 0 91 720 0 0 0 544 324 0 2153 APPROACH %'s : 12.24% 0.00% 87.76% 0.00% 11.22% 88.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 62.67% 37.33% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 29 0 232 0 0 0 0 0 46 386 0 0 0 278 155 0 1126 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.725 0.000 0.906 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.821 0.902 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.939 0.901 0.000 24-090093-003
8/20/2024
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
0.923 0.882 0.893 0.933
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.949
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.785 0.800 0.915
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Totals
SR 99/Golden State Hwy NB Ramps SR 99/Golden State Hwy NB Ramps E Mission Ave E Mission Ave National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Coffee St & E Mission Ave/Campus Pkwy
City: Merced Project ID:
Control: 4-Way Stop Date:
NS/EW Streets:
1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.5 0.5 0 1 1.5 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 39 6 6 0 0 6 4 0 2 40 30 0 21 65 0 1 220
7:15 AM 46 12 15 0 1 12 8 0 11 70 39 0 31 76 1 0 322
7:30 AM 51 14 17 0 5 10 13 0 22 90 35 0 32 86 4 0 379
7:45 AM 41 10 17 0 17 12 19 0 22 95 38 0 21 92 7 1 392
8:00 AM 33 8 10 0 3 6 18 0 26 109 38 0 17 69 0 0 337
8:15 AM 49 6 7 0 2 8 22 0 26 72 48 0 20 74 3 0 337
8:30 AM 33 7 14 0 2 8 10 0 9 52 34 0 21 54 2 0 246
8:45 AM 44 6 7 0 0 7 6 0 3 60 41 1 16 39 1 0 231
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 336 69 93 0 30 69 100 0 121 588 303 1 179 555 18 2 2464 APPROACH %'s : 67.47% 13.86% 18.67% 0.00% 15.08% 34.67% 50.25% 0.00% 11.94% 58.05% 29.91% 0.10% 23.74% 73.61% 2.39% 0.27% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 174 38 51 0 27 36 72 0 96 366 159 0 90 321 14 1 1445 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.853 0.679 0.750 0.000 0.397 0.750 0.818 0.000 0.923 0.839 0.828 0.000 0.703 0.872 0.500 0.250 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.5 0.5 0 1 1.5 0.5 0
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 49 11 11 0 1 10 10 0 14 80 58 0 11 53 3 0 311
4:15 PM 41 10 16 0 1 14 8 0 14 99 51 0 21 65 4 0 344
4:30 PM 46 6 7 0 0 10 10 0 15 113 38 0 22 60 0 0 327
4:45 PM 37 4 8 0 0 6 12 0 9 81 47 0 17 44 0 0 265
5:00 PM 32 5 8 0 0 7 6 0 12 90 35 0 26 72 2 0 295
5:15 PM 23 12 8 0 0 10 8 0 22 85 39 0 17 76 1 0 301
5:30 PM 40 9 14 0 1 4 7 0 8 67 37 0 43 69 0 0 299
5:45 PM 43 8 10 0 0 14 11 0 10 63 49 0 28 45 0 0 281
NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 311 65 82 0 3 75 72 0 104 678 354 0 185 484 10 0 2423 APPROACH %'s : 67.90% 14.19% 17.90% 0.00% 2.00% 50.00% 48.00% 0.00% 9.15% 59.68% 31.16% 0.00% 27.25% 71.28% 1.47% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:00 PM 289 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 173 31 42 0 2 40 40 0 52 373 194 0 71 222 7 0 1247 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.883 0.705 0.656 0.000 0.500 0.714 0.833 0.000 0.867 0.825 0.836 0.000 0.807 0.854 0.438 0.000 24-090093-005
8/20/2024
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
0.906 0.866 0.891 0.932 0.833
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0.922
PM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
0.802 0.703 0.897 0.873
AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Totals
Coffee St Coffee St E Mission Ave/Campus Pkwy E Mission Ave/Campus Pkwy Appendix B – Synchro Worksheets
EXISTING CONDITIONS
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Gerard Avenue & Pluim Drive 01/12/2025
Existing AM Peak Existing Conditions 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 117 128 10 38 24
Future Vol, veh/h 15 117 128 10 38 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 69 69 61 61 67 67
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 22 170 210 16 57 36
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 226 0 - 0 432 218
Stage 1 - - - - 218 -
Stage 2 - - - - 214 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1337 - - - 579 819
Stage 1 - - - - 816 -
Stage 2 - - - - 819 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1337 - - - 569 819
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 569 -
Stage 1 - - - - 801 -
Stage 2 - - - - 819 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0 11.5
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1337 - - - 645
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - - 0.143
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - - 11.5
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.5
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Campus Parkway & Gerard Avenue 01/12/2025
Existing AM Peak Existing Conditions 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 74 14 90 28 11 3 57 413 23 2 329 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 74 14 90 28 11 3 57 413 23 2 329 74 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 103 19 125 40 16 4 71 516 29 3 439 99 Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 227 344 154 156 272 121 193 1928 860 85 1816 810 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.02 0.52 0.52 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 103 19 125 40 16 4 71 516 29 3 439 99 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.3 3.8 0.7 0.3 0.1 1.3 4.9 0.5 0.1 4.4 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.3 3.8 0.7 0.3 0.1 1.3 4.9 0.5 0.1 4.4 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 344 154 156 272 121 193 1928 860 85 1816 810 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.06 0.81 0.26 0.06 0.03 0.37 0.27 0.03 0.04 0.24 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 571 1313 586 408 1145 511 462 1928 860 353 1816 810 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.4 25.8 17.0 29.1 27.0 18.1 28.7 7.6 6.6 30.0 8.5 7.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.1 9.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.1 2.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.3 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.8 25.9 26.9 29.9 27.1 18.2 29.8 7.9 6.7 30.2 8.8 8.2 LnGrp LOS C C C C C B C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 247 60 616 541
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.0 28.4 10.4 8.8
Approach LOS C C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 39.0 7.4 10.7 8.1 37.0 8.7 9.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 34.5 7.5 23.5 8.5 32.5 10.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 6.9 2.7 5.8 3.3 6.4 3.8 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 2.8 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.5
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Campus Parkway & SR 99 SB Off Ramp 01/12/2025
Existing AM Peak Existing Conditions 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 268 27 0 209 0 177 0 40 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 268 27 0 209 0 177 0 40 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 0 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 357 36 0 220 0 188 0 43
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 0 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 0 547 55 0 596 0 1043 0 928
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3328 324 0 3711 0 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 193 200 0 220 0 188 0 43
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 1797 0 1763 0 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.2 6.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.2 6.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 298 304 0 596 0 1043 0 928
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.65 0.66 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1146 1168 0 2291 0 1043 0 928
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 23.6 23.6 0.0 22.4 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 25.9 26.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.3 LnGrp LOS A C C A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 393 220 231
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.0 22.8 3.8
Approach LOS C C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 46.0 14.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.5 41.5 39.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 4.7 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 1.2 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.1
HCM 6th LOS B
++ .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: SR 99 NB-Off Ramp & Campus Parkway 01/12/2025
Existing AM Peak Existing Conditions 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 401 0 0 326 241 30 0 218 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 401 0 0 326 241 30 0 218 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 55 501 0 0 354 262 38 0 276
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.79 0.79 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 3 3 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 85 1203 0 0 794 354 798 0 710
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.52 0.00 0.52 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 55 501 0 0 354 262 38 0 276
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 10.2 0.8 0.0 8.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 10.2 0.8 0.0 8.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 85 1203 0 0 794 354 798 0 710
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.74 0.05 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 308 2482 0 0 1628 726 798 0 710
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.9 16.7 0.0 0.0 22.0 23.8 7.7 0.0 9.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.2 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.9 16.9 0.0 0.0 22.4 26.8 7.8 0.0 11.1 LnGrp LOS D B A A C C A A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 556 616 314
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.1 24.3 10.7
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 27.0 7.7 19.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 34.5 46.5 11.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.0 9.2 4.0 12.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 3.0 0.0 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5
HCM 6th LOS B
""i ++ --- ++ .,, - .,,
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Gerard Avenue & Pluim Drive 01/12/2025
Existing PM Peak Existing Conditions 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 62 76 25 16 6
Future Vol, veh/h 5 62 76 25 16 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 87 87 69 69
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 6 74 87 29 23 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 116 0 - 0 188 102
Stage 1 - - - - 102 -
Stage 2 - - - - 86 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1466 - - - 799 950
Stage 1 - - - - 920 -
Stage 2 - - - - 935 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1466 - - - 796 950
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 796 -
Stage 1 - - - - 916 -
Stage 2 - - - - 935 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 9.5
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1466 - - - 833
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.038
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 9.5
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Campus Parkway & Gerard Avenue 01/12/2025
Existing PM Peak Existing Conditions 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 52 2 34 11 9 4 65 367 30 67 279 3 Future Volume (veh/h) 52 2 34 11 9 4 65 367 30 67 279 3 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 2 41 20 16 7 74 417 34 82 340 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 185 259 115 151 223 100 202 1841 821 212 1852 826 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.52 0.52 0.06 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 2 41 20 16 7 74 417 34 82 340 4 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.3 3.9 0.6 1.4 3.1 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.3 3.9 0.6 1.4 3.1 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 185 259 115 151 223 100 202 1841 821 212 1852 826 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.01 0.36 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.37 0.23 0.04 0.39 0.18 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 540 1257 561 483 1198 535 597 1841 821 597 1852 826 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.5 25.9 16.0 27.7 26.6 15.9 27.3 7.8 7.0 27.2 7.5 6.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.6 25.9 17.8 28.1 26.7 16.2 28.4 8.1 7.1 28.3 7.7 6.8 LnGrp LOS C C B C C B C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 106 43 525 426
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.4 25.7 10.9 11.7
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 36.0 7.2 8.9 8.1 36.2 7.8 8.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 31.5 8.5 21.5 10.5 31.5 9.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 5.9 2.3 3.2 3.3 5.1 3.1 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.1
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Campus Parkway & SR 99 SB Off Ramp 01/12/2025
Existing PM Peak Existing Conditions 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 182 39 0 124 0 255 5 25 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 182 39 0 124 0 255 5 25 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 0 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 204 44 0 136 0 287 6 28
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 0 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 0 328 69 0 399 0 1133 24 1029
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 2989 612 0 3711 0 1497 31 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 123 125 0 136 0 293 0 28
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 1745 0 1763 0 1529 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.6 4.8 0.0 2.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.6 4.8 0.0 2.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.98 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 200 198 0 399 0 1157 0 1029
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.61 0.63 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 724 717 0 1449 0 1157 0 1029
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 29.3 29.4 0.0 28.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.0 3.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 32.3 32.7 0.0 28.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.1 LnGrp LOS A C C A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 248 136 321
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.5 28.9 3.0
Approach LOS C C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 57.0 12.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 52.5 28.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 6.0 4.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 1.9 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.4
HCM 6th LOS B
++ .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: SR 99 NB-Off Ramp & Campus Parkway 01/12/2025
Existing PM Peak Existing Conditions 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 386 0 0 278 155 29 0 232 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 386 0 0 278 155 29 0 232 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 434 0 0 299 167 33 0 264
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 3 3 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 84 992 0 0 574 256 880 0 783
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.58 0.00 0.58 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 434 0 0 299 167 33 0 264
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 4.9 6.3 0.6 0.0 6.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 4.9 6.3 0.6 0.0 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 84 992 0 0 574 256 880 0 783
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.65 0.04 0.00 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 349 2478 0 0 1531 683 880 0 783
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.6 18.6 0.0 0.0 24.2 24.8 5.8 0.0 7.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.8 0.1 0.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.2 0.2 0.0 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 18.9 0.0 0.0 25.0 27.6 5.9 0.0 8.2 LnGrp LOS D B A A C C A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 486 466 297
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.9 25.9 8.0
Approach LOS C C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.0 22.3 7.5 14.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 44.5 12.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 8.4 3.8 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 2.6 0.0 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.7
HCM 6th LOS B
""i ++ --- ++ .,, - .,,
OPENING YEAR 2025
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Pluim Drive & Gerard Avenue 01/12/2025
AM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 121 8 5 133 10 11 5 5 39 5 24
Future Vol, veh/h 15 121 8 5 133 10 11 5 5 39 5 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - 0 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 69 69 92 92 61 61 92 92 92 67 92 67
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 22 175 9 5 218 16 12 5 5 58 5 36
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 234 0 0 184 0 0 481 468 180 465 464 226 Stage 1 - - - - - - 224 224 - 236 236 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 257 244 - 229 228 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1328 - - 1385 - - 494 491 860 506 494 811 Stage 1 - - - - - - 776 716 - 765 708 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 745 702 - 772 714 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1328 - - 1385 - - 460 480 860 490 483 811 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 460 480 - 490 483 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 762 703 - 751 705 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 704 699 - 747 701 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.2 12.1 12.6
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 466 860 1328 - - 1385 - - 571
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 0.006 0.016 - - 0.004 - - 0.174 HCM Control Delay (s) 13 9.2 7.8 0 - 7.6 0 - 12.6
HCM Lane LOS B A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.6
HCM 6th TWSC
6: Mission Avenue & Pluim Drive 01/12/2025
AM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 31 29 31 25 3
Future Vol, veh/h 2 31 29 31 25 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 2 34 32 34 27 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 66 0 - 0 87 49
Stage 1 - - - - 49 -
Stage 2 - - - - 38 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1529 - - - 912 1017
Stage 1 - - - - 971 -
Stage 2 - - - - 982 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1529 - - - 911 1017
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 911 -
Stage 1 - - - - 970 -
Stage 2 - - - - 982 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 9
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1529 - - - 911 1017
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.03 0.003
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.1 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 0
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Campus Parkway & Gerard Avenue 01/13/2025
AM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 17 92 34 13 3 58 468 32 2 368 83 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 17 92 34 13 3 58 468 32 2 368 83 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 121 24 128 49 19 4 72 585 40 3 491 111 Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 238 352 157 161 273 122 194 1918 856 86 1807 806 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.54 0.54 0.03 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 121 24 128 49 19 4 72 585 40 3 491 111 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.4 3.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 1.3 5.8 0.8 0.1 5.0 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.4 3.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 1.3 5.8 0.8 0.1 5.0 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 352 157 161 273 122 194 1918 856 86 1807 806 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.07 0.82 0.30 0.07 0.03 0.37 0.30 0.05 0.03 0.27 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 568 1307 583 406 1140 508 460 1918 856 351 1807 806 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.5 25.9 17.0 29.2 27.1 18.1 28.8 7.9 6.8 30.2 8.7 8.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.1 9.8 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.2 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.5 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 25.9 26.8 30.3 27.2 18.3 30.0 8.3 6.9 30.3 9.1 8.5 LnGrp LOS C C C C C B C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 273 72 697 605
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 28.8 10.5 9.1
Approach LOS C C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 39.0 7.5 10.8 8.1 37.0 8.9 9.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 34.5 7.5 23.5 8.5 32.5 10.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 7.8 2.9 5.9 3.3 7.0 4.2 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.4 0.1 3.2 0.2 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.7
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Campus Parkway & SR 99 SB Off Ramp 01/13/2025
AM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 283 28 0 227 0 269 0 41 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 283 28 0 227 0 269 0 41 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 0 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 377 37 0 239 0 286 0 44
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 0 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 0 537 52 0 583 0 1082 0 963
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.71 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3337 317 0 3711 0 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 204 210 0 239 0 286 0 44
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 1799 0 1763 0 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.8 7.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.8 7.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 292 298 0 583 0 1082 0 963
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.70 0.71 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 754 769 0 1508 0 1082 0 963
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 28.1 28.1 0.0 26.6 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.0 3.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 3.1 3.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 31.1 31.2 0.0 27.1 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.2 LnGrp LOS A C C A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 414 239 330
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 27.1 4.2
Approach LOS C C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.3 55.0 16.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 50.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 6.8 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 1.9 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
++ .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: SR 99 NB-Off Ramp & Campus Parkway 01/13/2025
AM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 507 0 0 395 385 31 0 254 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 45 507 0 0 395 385 31 0 254 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 634 0 0 429 418 39 0 322
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.79 0.79 0.79 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 3 3 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 81 1478 0 0 1104 493 703 0 626
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.46 0.00 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 634 0 0 429 418 39 0 322
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 9.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 18.6 1.1 0.0 12.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 9.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 18.6 1.1 0.0 12.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 1478 0 0 1104 493 703 0 626
V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.85 0.06 0.00 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 271 2189 0 0 1435 640 703 0 626
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.2 15.4 0.0 0.0 20.1 24.1 11.2 0.0 14.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.3 0.2 0.0 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 7.0 0.3 0.0 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 15.6 0.0 0.0 20.3 32.4 11.3 0.0 17.3 LnGrp LOS D B A A C C B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 690 847 361
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.0 26.3 16.6
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 35.9 7.9 28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 34.5 46.5 11.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 11.5 4.3 20.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 4.0 0.0 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.4
HCM 6th LOS C
""i ++ --- ++ .,, - .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Pluim Drive & Campus Parkway 01/13/2025
AM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 442 60 21 424 23 88 9 28 30 9 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 442 60 21 424 23 88 9 28 30 9 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 480 65 23 461 25 96 10 30 33 10 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 102 771 344 46 661 295 125 1557 694 61 1429 638 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 480 65 23 461 25 96 10 30 33 10 110 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 7.9 2.2 0.8 7.9 0.8 3.4 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.1 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 7.9 2.2 0.8 7.9 0.8 3.4 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.1 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 102 771 344 46 661 295 125 1557 694 61 1429 638 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.62 0.19 0.50 0.70 0.08 0.77 0.01 0.04 0.54 0.01 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 342 1557 694 205 1284 573 370 1557 694 205 1429 638 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.9 22.8 20.5 31.0 24.5 21.7 29.5 10.1 10.3 30.7 11.4 12.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 0.8 0.3 8.0 1.3 0.1 9.5 0.0 0.1 7.2 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 2.9 0.7 0.4 2.9 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.2 23.6 20.8 39.0 25.9 21.8 38.9 10.1 10.4 37.9 11.5 12.9 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 621 509 136 153
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 26.3 30.5 18.2
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 33.0 6.2 18.6 9.1 30.7 8.2 16.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 28.5 7.5 28.5 13.5 22.5 12.5 23.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 2.7 2.8 9.9 5.4 4.9 4.7 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.4
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Pluim Drive & Gerard Avenue 01/12/2025
PM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 67 15 5 81 26 13 5 5 16 5 6
Future Vol, veh/h 5 67 15 5 81 26 13 5 5 16 5 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - 0 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 92 92 87 87 92 92 92 69 92 69
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 6 80 16 5 93 30 14 5 5 23 5 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 123 0 0 96 0 0 225 233 88 223 226 108 Stage 1 - - - - - - 100 100 - 118 118 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 125 133 - 105 108 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1458 - - 1491 - - 728 665 968 731 671 943 Stage 1 - - - - - - 904 810 - 884 796 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 877 784 - 898 804 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1458 - - 1491 - - 713 660 968 718 666 943 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 713 660 - 718 666 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 900 807 - 880 793 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 860 781 - 883 801 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0.3 10 10
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 697 968 1458 - - 1491 - - 751
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 0.006 0.004 - - 0.004 - - 0.05 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 8.7 7.5 0 - 7.4 0 - 10
HCM Lane LOS B A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.2
HCM 6th TWSC
6: Mission Avenue & Pluim Drive 01/12/2025
PM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 35 29 41 45 3
Future Vol, veh/h 4 35 29 41 45 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 4 38 32 45 49 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 77 0 - 0 101 55
Stage 1 - - - - 55 -
Stage 2 - - - - 46 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1515 - - - 895 1009
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 974 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1515 - - - 892 1009
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 892 -
Stage 1 - - - - 962 -
Stage 2 - - - - 974 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 9.3
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1515 - - - 892 1009
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.055 0.003
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.3 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 0
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Campus Parkway & Gerard Avenue 01/13/2025
PM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 5 35 23 13 4 66 428 40 68 351 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 5 35 23 13 4 66 428 40 68 351 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 6 43 42 24 7 75 486 45 83 428 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 204 262 117 189 246 110 198 1808 807 252 1864 831 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.07 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 6 43 42 24 7 75 486 45 83 428 23 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.3 4.9 0.9 1.5 4.1 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.3 4.9 0.9 1.5 4.1 0.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 204 262 117 189 246 110 198 1808 807 252 1864 831 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.02 0.37 0.22 0.10 0.06 0.38 0.27 0.06 0.33 0.23 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 514 1141 509 460 1085 484 514 1808 807 568 1864 831 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.7 27.2 17.2 28.6 27.6 16.3 28.7 8.7 7.7 27.9 8.0 7.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.9 27.2 19.1 29.2 27.8 16.5 29.9 9.1 7.9 28.6 8.3 7.2 LnGrp LOS C C B C C B C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 129 73 606 534
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.2 27.5 11.6 11.4
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 37.0 8.0 9.2 8.2 38.0 8.3 8.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 32.5 8.5 20.5 9.5 33.5 9.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 6.9 2.7 3.3 3.3 6.1 3.4 2.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.8
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Campus Parkway & SR 99 SB Off Ramp 01/13/2025
PM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 205 40 0 143 0 448 5 26 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 205 40 0 143 0 448 5 26 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 0 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 230 45 0 157 0 503 6 29
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 0 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 0 334 64 0 400 0 1168 14 1051
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.77 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3042 567 0 3711 0 1510 18 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 136 139 0 157 0 509 0 29
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 1753 0 1763 0 1528 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.9 6.1 0.0 3.3 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.9 6.1 0.0 3.3 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.99 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 200 199 0 400 0 1182 0 1051
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.68 0.70 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 432 430 0 865 0 1182 0 1051
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 33.9 33.9 0.0 32.7 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 4.0 4.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.5 2.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 37.9 38.4 0.0 33.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.1 LnGrp LOS A D D A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 275 157 538
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.1 33.3 4.1
Approach LOS D C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.5 66.0 13.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 61.5 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 11.0 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 3.6 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.5
HCM 6th LOS B
++ .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: SR 99 NB-Off Ramp & Campus Parkway 01/13/2025
PM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 601 0 0 355 311 30 0 302 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 601 0 0 355 311 30 0 302 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 53 675 0 0 382 334 34 0 343
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 3 3 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 80 1303 0 0 923 412 772 0 687
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.51 0.00 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 53 675 0 0 382 334 34 0 343
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 6.5 14.4 0.8 0.0 12.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 6.5 14.4 0.8 0.0 12.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 1303 0 0 923 412 772 0 687
V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.81 0.04 0.00 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 306 2174 0 0 1343 599 772 0 687
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.9 17.7 0.0 0.0 22.1 25.0 9.0 0.0 11.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.4 0.1 0.0 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 5.2 0.2 0.0 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.9 18.1 0.0 0.0 22.3 30.4 9.1 0.0 14.4 LnGrp LOS D B A A C C A A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 728 716 377
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 26.1 13.9
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.0 31.2 7.8 23.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 44.5 12.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 12.8 4.1 16.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 4.2 0.0 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
""i ++ --- ++ .,, - .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Pluim Drive & Campus Parkway 01/13/2025
PM Peak Opening Year 2025 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 146 382 127 43 278 47 105 14 41 43 14 121 Future Volume (veh/h) 146 382 127 43 278 47 105 14 41 43 14 121 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 415 138 47 302 51 114 15 45 47 15 132 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 204 722 322 78 471 210 148 1506 672 78 1366 609 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 415 138 47 302 51 114 15 45 47 15 132 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 6.8 4.9 1.7 5.2 1.9 4.1 0.2 1.1 1.7 0.2 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 6.8 4.9 1.7 5.2 1.9 4.1 0.2 1.1 1.7 0.2 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 204 722 322 78 471 210 148 1506 672 78 1366 609 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.57 0.43 0.60 0.64 0.24 0.77 0.01 0.07 0.60 0.01 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 480 1616 721 206 1068 476 371 1506 672 206 1366 609 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 23.1 22.3 30.2 26.4 25.0 28.9 10.6 10.9 30.2 12.1 13.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.4 0.7 0.9 7.3 1.5 0.6 8.1 0.0 0.2 7.3 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 2.5 1.6 0.8 2.0 0.6 1.9 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.0 23.8 23.2 37.5 27.9 25.6 37.0 10.6 11.1 37.5 12.1 14.0 LnGrp LOS C C C D C C D B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 712 400 174 194
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.0 28.7 28.0 19.5
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 32.0 7.3 17.7 9.9 29.4 11.9 13.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 27.5 7.5 29.5 13.5 21.5 17.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 3.1 3.7 8.8 6.1 5.6 7.6 7.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.1
HCM 6th LOS C
HORIZON YEAR 2046 WITHOUT PROJECT
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Gerard Avenue & Pluim Drive 01/12/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 181 198 15 59 37
Future Vol, veh/h 23 181 198 15 59 37
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 25 197 215 16 64 40
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 231 0 - 0 470 223
Stage 1 - - - - 223 -
Stage 2 - - - - 247 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1331 - - - 550 814
Stage 1 - - - - 812 -
Stage 2 - - - - 792 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1331 - - - 538 814
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 538 -
Stage 1 - - - - 795 -
Stage 2 - - - - 792 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0 12
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1331 - - - 619
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - - 0.169
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - - 12
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.6
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Campus Parkway & Gerard Avenue 01/12/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 114 22 139 43 17 5 88 855 36 3 704 114 Future Volume (veh/h) 114 22 139 43 17 5 88 855 36 3 704 114 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 124 24 151 47 18 5 96 929 39 3 765 124 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 218 384 171 145 309 138 203 1954 872 155 1905 850 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.05 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 24 151 47 18 5 96 929 39 3 765 124 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.4 5.4 1.0 0.3 0.2 2.0 11.5 0.8 0.1 9.2 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.4 5.4 1.0 0.3 0.2 2.0 11.5 0.8 0.1 9.2 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 218 384 171 145 309 138 203 1954 872 155 1905 850 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.06 0.88 0.32 0.06 0.04 0.47 0.48 0.04 0.02 0.40 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 404 1026 458 261 879 392 309 1954 872 261 1905 850 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.8 28.9 20.0 33.6 30.2 20.0 32.9 9.7 7.4 32.9 9.7 8.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.1 13.6 1.3 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.2 3.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.8 3.3 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.2 28.9 33.6 34.8 30.3 20.1 34.6 10.6 7.4 33.0 10.4 8.6 LnGrp LOS D C C C C C C B A C B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 299 70 1064 892
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 32.6 12.6 10.2
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 44.5 7.6 12.4 8.8 43.5 9.1 10.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 40.0 5.5 21.0 6.5 39.0 8.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 13.5 3.0 7.4 4.0 11.2 4.5 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 5.3 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.0
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Campus Parkway & SR 99 SB Off Ramp 01/12/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 414 42 0 323 0 278 0 62 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 414 42 0 323 0 278 0 62 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 0 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 450 46 0 340 0 296 0 66
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 0 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 0 619 63 0 676 0 1045 0 929
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3323 329 0 3711 0 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 245 251 0 340 0 296 0 66
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 1796 0 1763 0 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 9.4 9.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 5.5 0.0 1.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 9.4 9.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 5.5 0.0 1.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 338 344 0 676 0 1045 0 929
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.72 0.73 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 767 782 0 1534 0 1045 0 929
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 27.5 27.5 0.0 26.2 0.0 4.5 0.0 3.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 3.8 3.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 30.4 30.5 0.0 26.7 0.0 5.2 0.0 3.9 LnGrp LOS A C C A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 496 340 362
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.4 26.7 4.9
Approach LOS C C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.4 54.0 18.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 49.5 31.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.5 7.5 8.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 2.0 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.7
HCM 6th LOS C
++ .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: SR 99 NB-Off Ramp & Campus Parkway 01/12/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 624 0 0 703 385 46 0 555 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 624 0 0 703 385 46 0 555 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 678 0 0 764 418 50 0 603
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 3 3 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 95 1319 0 0 949 423 800 0 712
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.52 0.00 0.52 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 678 0 0 764 418 50 0 603
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 13.1 0.0 0.0 17.8 23.3 1.4 0.0 33.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 13.1 0.0 0.0 17.8 23.3 1.4 0.0 33.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 95 1319 0 0 949 423 800 0 712
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.99 0.06 0.00 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 135 1398 0 0 949 423 800 0 712
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.1 21.4 0.0 0.0 30.0 32.0 10.3 0.0 17.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.1 40.3 0.2 0.0 12.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 4.8 0.0 0.0 7.4 12.6 0.5 0.0 11.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.1 21.7 0.0 0.0 35.1 72.3 10.5 0.0 29.9 LnGrp LOS E C A A D E B A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 752 1182 653
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 48.3 28.4
Approach LOS C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.6 37.4 9.2 28.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.1 34.9 6.7 23.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 35.4 15.1 5.6 25.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 3.8 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.6
HCM 6th LOS D
""i ++ --- ++ .,, - .,,
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Gerard Avenue & Pluim Drive 01/12/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 96 117 39 25 9
Future Vol, veh/h 8 96 117 39 25 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 9 104 127 42 27 10
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 169 0 - 0 270 148
Stage 1 - - - - 148 -
Stage 2 - - - - 122 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1402 - - - 717 896
Stage 1 - - - - 877 -
Stage 2 - - - - 901 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1402 - - - 712 896
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 712 -
Stage 1 - - - - 871 -
Stage 2 - - - - 901 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 10
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1402 - - - 753
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - - 0.049
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 10
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Campus Parkway & Gerard Avenue 01/12/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 3 53 17 14 6 100 823 46 104 728 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 3 53 17 14 6 100 823 46 104 728 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 3 58 18 15 7 109 895 50 113 791 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 200 243 108 175 217 97 216 1970 878 218 1972 879 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.56 0.56 0.06 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 3 58 18 15 7 109 895 50 113 791 5 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 0.1 2.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.1 10.5 1.0 2.2 8.9 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.1 2.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.1 10.5 1.0 2.2 8.9 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 243 108 175 217 97 216 1970 878 218 1972 879 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.01 0.53 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.45 0.06 0.52 0.40 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 319 980 437 250 909 405 417 1970 878 417 1972 879 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.8 30.3 19.8 31.6 30.9 19.5 31.7 9.1 7.0 31.6 8.7 6.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 2.9 0.3 0.9 2.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.2 30.3 23.8 31.9 31.0 19.8 33.5 9.9 7.1 33.5 9.4 6.8 LnGrp LOS C C C C C B C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 148 40 1054 909
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.5 29.4 12.2 12.3
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 43.5 8.1 9.3 8.9 43.5 8.6 8.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.5 39.0 5.1 19.4 8.5 39.0 6.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 12.5 2.3 4.0 4.1 10.9 3.7 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.8
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Campus Parkway & SR 99 SB Off Ramp 01/12/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 281 60 0 192 0 408 8 39 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 281 60 0 192 0 408 8 39 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 0 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 305 65 0 209 0 443 9 42
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 0 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 0 425 89 0 517 0 1106 22 1003
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.74 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 2992 609 0 3711 0 1498 30 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 184 186 0 209 0 452 0 42
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 1746 0 1763 0 1529 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.7 7.9 0.0 4.2 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.7 7.9 0.0 4.2 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.98 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 258 256 0 517 0 1128 0 1003
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.71 0.73 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 532 527 0 1063 0 1128 0 1003
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 31.7 31.8 0.0 30.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.6 3.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 3.2 3.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 35.3 35.7 0.0 30.7 0.0 4.9 0.0 2.8 LnGrp LOS A D D A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 370 209 494
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.5 30.7 4.7
Approach LOS D C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.9 62.0 15.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 57.5 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 10.6 6.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.5 3.1 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4
HCM 6th LOS C
++ .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: SR 99 NB-Off Ramp & Campus Parkway 01/12/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Without Project Conditions 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 611 0 0 730 248 45 0 620 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 611 0 0 730 248 45 0 620 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 664 0 0 785 267 49 0 674
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 3 3 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 98 1245 0 0 870 388 833 0 741
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.55 0.00 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 664 0 0 785 267 49 0 674
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 13.3 0.0 0.0 19.2 13.7 1.3 0.0 39.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 13.3 0.0 0.0 19.2 13.7 1.3 0.0 39.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 98 1245 0 0 870 388 833 0 741
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.69 0.06 0.00 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 109 1289 0 0 892 398 833 0 741
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.4 22.9 0.0 0.0 32.4 30.4 9.5 0.0 18.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 12.1 4.8 0.1 0.0 17.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 5.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 5.2 0.4 0.0 13.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.9 23.3 0.0 0.0 44.6 35.2 9.6 0.0 35.3 LnGrp LOS E C A A D D A A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 741 1052 723
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.0 42.2 33.6
Approach LOS C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.0 35.9 9.5 26.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.5 32.5 5.5 22.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 41.7 15.3 5.8 21.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.8 3.6 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.5
HCM 6th LOS D
""i ++ --- ++ .,, - .,,
HORIZON YEAR 2046 PLUS PROJECT
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Pluim Drive & Gerard Avenue 01/12/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 183 8 5 201 15 11 5 5 59 5 37
Future Vol, veh/h 23 183 8 5 201 15 11 5 5 59 5 37
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - 0 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 25 199 9 5 218 16 12 5 5 64 5 40
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 234 0 0 208 0 0 513 498 204 495 494 226 Stage 1 - - - - - - 254 254 - 236 236 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 259 244 - 259 258 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1328 - - 1357 - - 470 472 834 483 475 811 Stage 1 - - - - - - 748 695 - 765 708 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 744 702 - 744 692 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1328 - - 1357 - - 434 460 834 467 463 811 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 434 460 - 467 463 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 732 680 - 749 705 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 699 699 - 718 677 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.2 12.5 13.1
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 442 834 1328 - - 1357 - - 553
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 0.007 0.019 - - 0.004 - - 0.199 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 9.3 7.8 0 - 7.7 0 - 13.1
HCM Lane LOS B A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.7
HCM 6th TWSC
6: Mission Avenue & Pluim Drive 01/12/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 47 43 31 25 3
Future Vol, veh/h 2 47 43 31 25 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 2 51 47 34 27 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 81 0 - 0 119 64
Stage 1 - - - - 64 -
Stage 2 - - - - 55 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1510 - - - 874 998
Stage 1 - - - - 956 -
Stage 2 - - - - 965 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1510 - - - 873 998
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 873 -
Stage 1 - - - - 955 -
Stage 2 - - - - 965 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 9.2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1510 - - - 873 998
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.031 0.003
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.3 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 0
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Campus Parkway & Gerard Avenue 01/13/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 24 139 49 19 5 88 901 44 3 734 122 Future Volume (veh/h) 126 24 139 49 19 5 88 901 44 3 734 122 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 137 26 151 53 21 5 96 979 48 3 798 133 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 222 384 171 155 316 141 202 1947 868 155 1898 847 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.05 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 137 26 151 53 21 5 96 979 48 3 798 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.5 5.4 1.1 0.4 0.2 2.0 12.5 1.0 0.1 9.8 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.5 5.4 1.1 0.4 0.2 2.0 12.5 1.0 0.1 9.8 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 222 384 171 155 316 141 202 1947 868 155 1898 847 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.07 0.88 0.34 0.07 0.04 0.47 0.50 0.06 0.02 0.42 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 402 1032 460 251 876 391 308 1947 868 260 1898 847 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 29.0 20.1 33.5 30.2 20.0 33.0 10.1 7.5 33.1 10.0 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.1 13.5 1.3 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.2 3.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.8 3.6 0.3 0.0 2.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 29.0 33.6 34.8 30.3 20.1 34.7 11.0 7.6 33.1 10.7 8.8 LnGrp LOS D C C C C C C B A C B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 314 79 1123 934
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.2 32.7 12.9 10.5
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 44.5 7.8 12.4 8.8 43.5 9.2 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 40.0 5.3 21.2 6.5 39.0 8.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 14.5 3.1 7.4 4.0 11.8 4.8 2.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.6 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Campus Parkway & SR 99 SB Off Ramp 01/13/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 424 42 0 337 0 362 0 62 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 424 42 0 337 0 362 0 62 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 0 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 461 46 0 355 0 385 0 66
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 0 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 0 614 61 0 668 0 1059 0 943
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3331 322 0 3711 0 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 250 257 0 355 0 385 0 66
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 1798 0 1763 0 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 10.3 10.4 0.0 7.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 1.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 10.3 10.4 0.0 7.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 1.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 334 341 0 668 0 1059 0 943
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 629 641 0 1257 0 1059 0 943
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 29.5 29.5 0.0 28.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 4.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 32.9 32.9 0.0 28.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 3.9 LnGrp LOS A C C A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 507 355 451
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.9 28.8 5.5
Approach LOS C C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.1 58.0 19.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 53.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.4 10.0 9.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 2.6 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.4
HCM 6th LOS C
++ .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: SR 99 NB-Off Ramp & Campus Parkway 01/13/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 718 0 0 759 511 46 0 583 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 718 0 0 759 511 46 0 583 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 780 0 0 825 555 50 0 634
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 3 3 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 96 1462 0 0 1066 475 717 0 638
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.47 0.00 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 780 0 0 825 555 50 0 634
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 12.9 0.0 0.0 16.6 23.5 1.4 0.0 36.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 12.9 0.0 0.0 16.6 23.5 1.4 0.0 36.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 96 1462 0 0 1066 475 717 0 638
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.77 1.17 0.07 0.00 0.99 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 375 2018 0 0 1066 475 717 0 638
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.3 17.1 0.0 0.0 24.7 27.1 11.3 0.0 20.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.6 96.1 0.2 0.0 34.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 4.4 0.0 0.0 6.5 20.2 0.4 0.0 15.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.3 17.4 0.0 0.0 28.3 123.2 11.5 0.0 54.6 LnGrp LOS D B A A C F B A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 854 1380 684
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.1 66.5 51.4
Approach LOS C E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.0 36.7 8.7 28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 44.5 16.5 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 38.1 14.9 5.2 25.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.0 0.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.4
HCM 6th LOS D
""i ++ --- ++ .,, - .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Pluim Drive & Campus Parkway 01/13/2025
AM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 5:25 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 890 60 21 841 23 88 9 28 30 9 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 890 60 21 841 23 88 9 28 30 9 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 967 65 23 914 25 96 10 30 33 10 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 98 1243 555 45 1137 507 123 1242 554 58 1113 497 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 967 65 23 914 25 96 10 30 33 10 110 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 18.6 2.1 1.0 18.0 0.8 4.1 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.1 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 18.6 2.1 1.0 18.0 0.8 4.1 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.1 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 98 1243 555 45 1137 507 123 1242 554 58 1113 497 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.78 0.12 0.51 0.80 0.05 0.78 0.01 0.05 0.57 0.01 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 209 1693 755 116 1508 673 151 1242 554 140 1113 497 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.4 21.9 16.6 36.6 23.5 17.7 34.8 16.0 16.3 36.2 17.8 19.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 1.6 0.1 8.9 2.4 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.2 8.3 0.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 6.7 0.7 0.5 6.7 0.3 2.3 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.8 23.6 16.7 45.4 26.0 17.8 53.8 16.0 16.4 44.5 17.9 20.2 LnGrp LOS D C B D C B D B B D B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1108 962 136 153
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.8 26.2 42.8 25.3
Approach LOS C C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 31.3 6.4 31.3 9.8 28.5 8.7 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 24.5 5.0 36.5 6.5 24.0 9.0 32.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 3.0 3.0 20.6 6.1 5.9 5.2 20.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.5
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Pluim Drive & Gerard Avenue 01/12/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 100 15 5 121 39 13 5 5 25 5 9
Future Vol, veh/h 8 100 15 5 121 39 13 5 5 25 5 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - 0 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 9 109 16 5 132 42 14 5 5 27 5 10
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 174 0 0 125 0 0 306 319 117 303 306 153 Stage 1 - - - - - - 135 135 - 163 163 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 171 184 - 140 143 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1397 - - 1455 - - 644 596 932 647 606 890 Stage 1 - - - - - - 866 783 - 837 761 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 829 746 - 861 777 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1397 - - 1455 - - 627 589 932 633 599 890 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 627 589 - 633 599 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 860 778 - 831 758 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 811 743 - 844 772 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.2 10.5 10.7
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 616 932 1397 - - 1455 - - 673
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 0.006 0.006 - - 0.004 - - 0.063 HCM Control Delay (s) 11 8.9 7.6 0 - 7.5 0 - 10.7
HCM Lane LOS B A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.2
HCM 6th TWSC
6: Mission Avenue & Pluim Drive 01/12/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 52 42 41 45 3
Future Vol, veh/h 4 52 42 41 45 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 4 57 46 45 49 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 91 0 - 0 134 69
Stage 1 - - - - 69 -
Stage 2 - - - - 65 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1498 - - - 857 991
Stage 1 - - - - 951 -
Stage 2 - - - - 955 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1498 - - - 854 991
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 854 -
Stage 1 - - - - 948 -
Stage 2 - - - - 955 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 9.4
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1498 - - - 854 991
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.057 0.003
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.5 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 0
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Campus Parkway & Gerard Avenue 01/13/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 6 53 29 18 6 100 875 56 104 790 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 6 53 29 18 6 100 875 56 104 790 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 101 7 58 32 20 7 109 951 61 113 859 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 210 245 109 194 228 102 215 1956 872 217 1958 873 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.06 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 3428 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 101 7 58 32 20 7 109 951 61 113 859 22 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.1 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 2.2 11.6 1.3 2.2 10.1 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.1 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 2.2 11.6 1.3 2.2 10.1 0.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 210 245 109 194 228 102 215 1956 872 217 1958 873 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.03 0.53 0.17 0.09 0.07 0.51 0.49 0.07 0.52 0.44 0.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 366 1023 456 249 903 403 366 1956 872 366 1958 873 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.9 30.5 20.0 31.6 30.9 19.5 31.9 9.5 7.3 31.9 9.2 7.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 4.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.9 0.9 0.2 1.9 0.7 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.9 3.3 0.4 0.9 2.8 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.6 30.5 23.9 32.0 31.1 19.8 33.8 10.4 7.4 33.8 9.9 7.1 LnGrp LOS C C C C C B C B A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 166 59 1121 994
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.1 30.2 12.5 12.6
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 43.5 8.5 9.4 8.9 43.5 8.8 9.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 39.0 5.1 20.4 7.5 39.0 7.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 13.6 2.6 4.0 4.2 12.1 4.0 2.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 5.6 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Campus Parkway & SR 99 SB Off Ramp 01/13/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 301 60 0 208 0 582 8 39 0 0 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 301 60 0 208 0 582 8 39 0 0 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1856 1856 0 1856 0 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 327 65 0 226 0 633 9 42
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 3 3 0 3 0 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 0 433 85 0 520 0 1121 16 1011
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.74 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3030 577 0 3711 0 1507 21 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 195 197 0 226 0 642 0 42
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1763 1752 0 1763 0 1528 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 8.8 9.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 8.8 9.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.99 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 260 258 0 520 0 1137 0 1011
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.75 0.76 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 416 413 0 831 0 1137 0 1011
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 33.8 33.9 0.0 32.1 0.0 4.7 0.0 2.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 4.3 4.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 3.7 3.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 38.1 38.6 0.0 32.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.9 LnGrp LOS A D D A C A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 392 226 684
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.3 32.7 6.5
Approach LOS D C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.7 66.0 16.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 61.5 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 17.3 6.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 4.9 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.6
HCM 6th LOS C
++ .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: SR 99 NB-Off Ramp & Campus Parkway 01/13/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 804 0 0 794 393 45 0 678 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 804 0 0 794 393 45 0 678 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1604 1604 1604 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 874 0 0 854 423 49 0 737
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 0 0 3 3 20 20 20
Cap, veh/h 98 1289 0 0 916 408 816 0 726
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.53 0.00 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 3618 1572 1527 0 1359
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 874 0 0 854 423 49 0 737
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 0 0 1763 1572 1527 0 1359 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 18.8 0.0 0.0 21.2 23.3 1.4 0.0 47.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 18.8 0.0 0.0 21.2 23.3 1.4 0.0 47.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 98 1289 0 0 916 408 816 0 726
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.93 1.04 0.06 0.00 1.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 104 1301 0 0 916 408 816 0 726
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 24.0 0.0 0.0 32.4 33.2 10.1 0.0 20.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 29.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 15.9 54.0 0.1 0.0 37.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 7.1 0.0 0.0 10.2 14.1 0.4 0.0 20.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.4 25.4 0.0 0.0 48.4 87.2 10.2 0.0 58.2 LnGrp LOS E C A A D F B A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 951 1277 786
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 61.2 55.3
Approach LOS C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.4 37.3 9.5 27.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.9 33.1 5.3 23.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.9 20.8 5.9 25.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.5
HCM 6th LOS D
""i ++ --- ++ .,, - .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Pluim Drive & Campus Parkway 01/13/2025
PM Peak Horizon Year 2046 Plus Project 6:47 pm 01/12/2025 Synchro 11 Report VRPA Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 146 856 127 43 729 47 105 14 41 43 14 121 Future Volume (veh/h) 146 856 127 43 729 47 105 14 41 43 14 121 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 930 138 47 792 51 114 15 45 47 15 132 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 197 1264 564 74 1019 454 146 1114 497 74 970 433 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 930 138 47 792 51 114 15 45 47 15 132 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 17.1 4.6 1.9 15.3 1.8 4.7 0.2 1.5 1.9 0.2 4.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 17.1 4.6 1.9 15.3 1.8 4.7 0.2 1.5 1.9 0.2 4.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 1264 564 74 1019 454 146 1114 497 74 970 433 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.74 0.24 0.64 0.78 0.11 0.78 0.01 0.09 0.64 0.02 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 249 1673 746 159 1493 666 249 1114 497 154 970 433 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.3 20.8 16.8 35.1 24.3 19.4 33.5 17.5 17.9 35.1 19.6 21.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.3 1.2 0.2 8.8 1.6 0.1 8.7 0.0 0.4 8.8 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 6.0 1.4 0.9 5.7 0.6 2.3 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.1 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.5 22.0 17.0 43.9 25.9 19.5 42.2 17.5 18.3 43.9 19.7 23.2 LnGrp LOS D C B D C B D B B D B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1227 890 174 194
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.6 26.4 33.9 27.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 28.0 7.6 31.2 10.6 25.0 12.8 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 23.5 6.7 35.3 10.5 19.5 10.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 3.5 3.9 19.1 6.7 6.9 8.5 17.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 4.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Appendix C – Approved/Pending Project
Information
6. 2035 Conditions
Traffic Growth from Approved and
Anticipated Development
Trip
Generation
This chapter discusses Cumulative (2035) traffic conditions both without and with the Project, considering the traffic growth from approved and anticipated development in Merced through the year 2035.
The City of Merced provided a list of approved projects expected to be constructed by 2035. The list of development projects is shown in Table 9.
The vehicle trip generation for the approved and anticipated development to 2035 was estimated using average trip generation rates and trip generation equations for the proposed land uses from ITE's (9th Edition), and, where available, the Transportation Impact Analyses prepared for specific developments. The total trip generation of the approved and anticipated development is estimated at 3,860 AM peak hour trips and 7,053 PM peak hour trips in 2035. The appendix contains the detailed trip generation calculations.
Traffic generated by the approved and anticipated development was assigned to the roadway network based on trip distribution information derived from the MCAG Travel Demand Model. Specifically, several 'select zone' runs were used to determine the general distribution of traffic from residential and commercial traffic analysis zones; these distribution patterns were then manually applied to the approved/anticipated development traffic, using the manual traffic assignment software Vistro. Trip distribution patterns based on the land use type and location within in the City are presented in Table 10. The appendix contains detailed information on the trip assignment process.
Table 9: Approved/ Anticipated Development to 2035 ,,,~, 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Project Name
Bellevue Ranch West Village 12
Regency Court Apartments
Compass Pointe II Apartments
Mansionette Estates Unit 5
University Village Merced Annexation
University Village Merced Annexation
Bianchi/Norcal Cajun Annexation
FEHR,1' PEERS
Size Units
15.7 KSF
6.4 KSF
87 Rooms
12 KSF
178 DU
523 KSF
15 KSF
48 Table 9: Approved/ Anticipated Development to 2035 ,,,~, 8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
31 32
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
Project Name
Yosemite & McKee Commercial Center
University Village Merced - Lake ("Merced Station")
University Village Merced - Lake ("Merced Station")
Prime Shine
Pro Lube
Gas Station/Conv. Market/Car Wash - Carol Ave
Towne Place Suites
Childs and Parsons (Old Bowling Alley)
Merced Gateway Center
Merced Gateway Center
Super Shop
Mainzer Theater
El Capitan Hotel
El Capitan Hotel (retail)
Advanced Chemical Transportation (ACT)
Bellevue Ranch East Village 15 (Remaining Lots)
Bellevue Ranch East Village 7 (Remaining Lots)
Bellevue Ranch East Lot Q (Remaining Lots)
Bellevue Ranch West Village 1
Campus Vista Unit 2 (Remaining Lots)
Lantana Estates South (Phase 1)
The Meadows Subdivision (Remaining Lots)
Mission Ranch (Remaining Lots)
Golden Valley Health Centers (Part of Northview)
Northview Medical Offices
PG&E Regional Utility Center
Merced Mall Expansion
Merced Mall Expansion
Stoneridge South Subdivision
Stoneridge South Subdivision
Bellevue Ranch East Village 16 (Remaining Lots)
Bellevue Ranch East Village 8 (Remaining Lots)
University Park 11, Phase 2 Subdivision (Remaining Lots) Sierra Vista Units 2 and 3 (Remaining Lots)
FEHR,1' PEERS
Size Units
11 .2 KSF
100 Rooms
74 KSF
21 KSF
65 DU
134 DU
100 DU
67 DU
61 DU
60 DU
58 DU
134 DU
27 KSF
66.45 KSF
48 KSF
7 Screens
50 KSF
160 DU
100 DU
71 DU
37 DU
125 DU
44 DU
48 DU
249 DU
101 DU
144 DU
101 DU
47 DU
293 DU
127 DU
25 DU
300 Emp
15.7 KSF
49 Table 9: Approved/ Anticipated Development to 2035 ,,,~, 40 41
42 43
44 45
46 Notes:
Project Name
Bellevue Ranch East Village 14 (Remaining Lots)
Moraga Subdivision Phase 1 (Remaining Lots)
Cypress Terrace East (Remaining Lots)
Sandcastle Phase 2 & 3 Subdivision (Remaining Lots)
Cypress Terrace East Phase 4 (Remaining Lots)
Tuscany East Subdivision (Remaining Lots)
Shadow Creek at Compass Point (Remaining Lots)
1. A map of the locations of these projects is included in the Technical Appendix.
Source: City of Merced and Merced County, May 2018.
FEHR,1' PEERS
Size Units
6.4 KSF
87 Rooms
12 KSF
178 DU
523 KSF
15 KSF
11 .2 KSF
so
D D D
AE ACCF
ACF
AE D
AE
BF ACF D G E AC
AF
ACE ACCF
ACCF
BE BF D
CE
AC
AC G E
ACCF AE
ACCF
ACCCF ACCF
ACCCF
ACCCF ACE
ACCE
ACCF ACCF
ACE A G
CE CE D D CE D BellrmRd
EMis.1ionAw
XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes § Signalized Intersection e Stop Sign c::::J Project Site 0 Study Intersection
I VYC17-3432_)(_Volumea
University of
Callfaml~erced EYostmltellw
1. Sneling Hw; (CA 59)/Bellevue Rd 2. G St/Bellevue Rd 3. lake Rd/Belevue Rd 4. G St/Cardela Rd 5. lake Rd/Cardella Rd I : 9 _L ! -mm -o e,~~ 25(17) 1 (2) e:e:e 0(0) 8 (5) 0,0 o,om ! 6(4) 5(4) 000 0(0) 0(0) o• • 3(2) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) ........ Bol"owoRd lo Bllf...u.Rd catdol"aRd ~;• Clrd.., Rd 0(0) t • 4 (14) ,tr· 0(0) t 1(1) ,t 1 2(7) ~~;- 2(6) !~! 0(0) €€§: 0 (0) NW 0(0) €€ 0(0) 4 (1 1) 4(6) ,000 10(7) 0(0) 0,0 6 ·~ 6
6. Snelling HW)' (CA 59)/Yosemite Ave 7. G St/Yosemite Ave 8. Gardner Ave/Parsons Ave/Yosemite Ave 9. McKee Rd/Yosemite Ave 10. Lake RdlYosemite Ave l
__ §' 9 I
•o ! I Ii~ !e,~ 21 (11) 10(16) t 16(25) ~!e,t!, 77(95) e~ 1 (2) ie~ 55(87) ~-N 95(109) 33(41) 53(53) • N~- 0(0) 61 (66) 11D N- 16 (16) v. .... : ......... v., .... 1 ....... ,. Yo""1:1eA,.. v ......... 1 • ..,,. Y0""1119 A"9 fr 54(42) .. i11r 20(64) t 11D ,r
44(138) !{~ 61 (1 83) 43(136) 5(4) 6 (4) 0(0) 30(85) 13(40) @N • I is , ! ' •
11. Snelling Hv.y {CA59)/Santa Fe Or/Olve Ave 12. R St/Olive Ave 13. M St/Olive Ave 14. G St/Olive Ave 15. Snelling HW)'(CA 59)/16th st : f 9 " __ i __ f l 8 (21) ~f! 6(6) 3(7) ~;-~ 10 (6) "t:. ;;~!:! 179(159) 178(167) 177(181) oo- 143(143) ½ 50 (1 19) Nt--CO ! 13(8) 1 (6) 44(38) m N,o 5(11) 11D . 34 (28) Sal'U Feo, o•- .o,.,.. OMA,e OM.l,e Ohe.lw. ·~-
,tr .. ,1t ' ,1t i11r 10(35) 6 (20) 4 (1 8) 44 (96)
84(233) 84 (224) "'"'~ 102 (278) 78(229) 0(0) ~m~
16(25) 3 (8) ID~,- 5(26) 6 (6) -~ M .,...~N e
16. MLK Jr Way/CA 99 NB Ramps 17. G St/14th St/CA 99 NB Off Ramp !
0 9 9
§:§ 16(17) "' 9(28)
mo N- 0(0) 4(4) 4(13) 0(0)
,. ..... .. .,,,.
"'
_ UlhSt CA99NBOffRam
,tt 1(1) ,11
ff 6(17) §:§: 0 (0) 6
Source: City of Merced and Merced County. 2030 growth projections were derived from 2035 projections, using a straight-line assumption, by Fehr & Peers.
Figure 8
2030 Approved/Anticipated Development Trip Assignment
CITY OF MERCED
PLANNING & PERMITTING DIVISION
TYPE OF PROPOSAL: Zone Change #431 and Tentative Subdivision Map #1323 INITIAL STUDY: #22-32
DATE RECEIVED: December 7, 2022 (date application determined to be complete) LOCATION: 385 S. Coffee Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 061-260-026
(SEE ATTACHED MAP AT ATTACHMENTS A)
Please forward any written comments by September 23, 2021 to:
Francisco Mendoza-Gonzalez, Associate Planner
City of Merced Planning & Permitting Division
678 West 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
209-385-6929
[email protected]
Applicant Contact Information:
Attn: Sam Sahota
23455 Prado De Los Peras
Calabasas, CA 91302
(213) 500-0860
[email protected]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site consists of an approximate 10-acre parcel (APN: 061-261-025) located at 385 S.
Coffee Street (Attachment B), generally located on the west side of S. Coffee Street, 300 feet north of E. Gerard Avenue. The subject site has a Zoning classification of Urban Transition (U-T) and a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (LD). The subject site is generally surrounded by single-family homes and agricultural uses.
The applicant would like to develop a single-family subdivision, for a total of 45 residential lots with two lots for a tot lot and a basin lot. The current zoning designation of Urban Transition is intended for agricultural uses that were permitted when this property was in County jurisdiction prior to being annexed into the City in 2007. The parcels would remain independent, with vehicle access from the extension of Capella Drive out to S. Coffee Street and other local and arterial roads.
Initial Study #22-32