City Council Meeting Supplemental Material 2-18-25 — Pleasanton City Council, February 18, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

Submitted On:

Feb 18, 2025, 11:26AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Carol
Last Name: Olson
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date City Council Regular Meeting on February 18, 2025 Agenda Item Number 9
Comments Please use this information regarding contamination, Health and Safety issues for Arroyo Lago. The history of this land presents a serious public health risk!
Upload File(s) Feb 17 Carol Olson Arroyo Lago Contaminants Soil etc.pdf February 17, 2025

1 To: Mayor Balch, City Council Members, City Manager and Staff From: Carol Olson, Resident of The Village at Ironwood

Subject: Arroyo Lago Contaminants, history of Busch Pitt, and removal of seasonal bird migration water location by imported landfill, apparently unauthorized.

I, together with the residents of The Village at Ironwood, live in a 55+ community. However, we, and at least half of the residents are 65-75 years old. The toxicity levels for the contaminants which are addressed in the Draft EIR DO NOT ADDRESS THE INCREASED SENSITIVITY TO THOSE COMTAMINANTS FOR THE ELDERLY!!! The Draft EIR does not address the reduces tolerance levels of their next-door communities like ours!

Our interest in the Proposed development in this context stems from the prior use of the land for Hanson Aggregates Radom Facility, soil fill after usage, and various dumping and use of “Ponds” with backfill materials which had contained hazardous materials. Having gone through much, but not all, of the Appendix F, (7218 pages) it is astonishing that anyone would consider living in such an Arroyo Lago area! With increased age, we would not have moved here if we knew of the reduced quality of life and life expectancy upon doing so.

All of the issues contained in the Hazards section 3.2 and 3.8 of the Draft EIR, while important on an individual basis, will have a measurable impact on the Health and Safety of the existing residents. A summary of those which have been studied in the allotted time are described here, as best as could be done in such a short time for the following:
• For the general population, as was done fin the Draft EIR, and • For the elderly population which are most impacted by the proposed development

Impact areas:

1) Even though some tests and borings at different times and locations were made in the most obvious hazardous locations, see figures below from the report dated Oct 26, 2007 through 2017 (maybe more) they were performed in the site, namely in AOC 6 (Busch Pit) AOC 7 and EB-35 for example. The fact that residual hazardous materials such as Chromium, Arsenic, other Heavy Metals, and hydrocarbons, for example, in the original or fill materials is alarming. (see Appendix F report) last 25% of the report on test borings, etc. page ~5140 onward.

The levels provided in the Draft EIR are the dominant consideration for the target population for a community development, so we assume. However, the hazardous levels for the elderly are obviously less than for the general population because of their reduced immune system functions and general aging of their bodies and minds.

It is both physical and mental acuity which set the levels of hazardous environmental resistance which affect our elderly communities.

The normal levels which are often quoted and used in the Draft EIR of Arroyo Lago are not pertinent to the 55+ residents of the Village at Ironwood and other Ironwood community(s). are not pertinent for the elderly and are much more sensitive to these levels. For example:

Bone Density, Kidney function (reduced levels by 30-35%), Liver function (reduce pr the World Health Organization and EPA. by 20-30%) at age 75 Per OSHA and EPA:
• Lead: 1.4x faster accumulation at 75, or 30% reduction in hazardous levels. • Mercury: 1.3x faster accumulation at 75, or 26% reduction in hazardous levels. • Cadmium: 1.5x faster accumulation at 75, or 26% reduction in hazardous levels. • Arsenic: 1.3x faster accumulation at 75, or 28% reduction in hazardous levels. • Dust protection is also much more important as we age.

1. World Health Organization (WHO): The WHO has extensively researched the health impacts of air pollution, including particulate matter. Their studies consistently show that exposure to PM2.5 is linked to increased risks of heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA has also conducted numerous studies on the health effects of air pollution. Their findings support the WHO's conclusions, highlighting the adverse impacts of PM2.5 on respiratory and cardiovascular health. While there may not be specific studies directly linking dust from earth-moving trucks to the health of elderly populations, the general body of research on air pollution and particulate matter strongly suggests that exposure to such dust can exacerbate existing health conditions and increase the risk of new health problems, especially in vulnerable groups like the elderly.

Both exposure level and duration are observed to be important to elderly vulnerable populations. None of this is addressed in the Draft EIR which is therefore not relevant to the current proposed development of Arroyo Lago which is adjacent to the Village at Ironwood, a 55+ community, as well to the other Ironwood communities along Busch Road. The Draft EIR should review elderly limits and re-test the site for those levels pertinent to the elderly, since the Village at Ironwood is populated with the Elderly with ages up to 99, average age near 75. 2) The figures and tables below indicate particular areas of interest, namely AOC 6 at the lower left of the figures, within the “Site” which is the Former Hansen Aggregates Radum Facility. Various Phases for proposed development, as shown in their Fig. 6 below, have been labeled in the figure The current Phase 1 is the site of the proposed Arroyo Lago development, which includes the AOC 6 hazardous contaminated area as well as other sites for test drilling and backfill from various sources . Note that a reduction factor should be applied to the elderly for proper evaluation of the residents at The Village at Ironwood for their susceptibility to harm.

The area map, as of 2017, below, shows a previous plan for Arroyo Lago for reference and location of the mentioned “former areas of concern”. Further test samples for example 2012, 2017 indicate Chromium, Arsenic, etc. very near danger levels. Or if Site Fill material
from various sites
AOC 6 (Busch Pit)
With various bore sites
APP F page 6384 APP F page 6381
P 6262 Appendix. F

already dangerous, as well as of possible fill materials included. Cleanup measures have been performed but that does not satisfy someone who still understands that hazardous materials levels are close to certain dangerous hazardous levels and could be already there in other areas, given the threat of earthquakes and other ground movement due to the nature of the soil composition, dangerous levels could very well move or be displaces by events to come. As previously noted in a letter dated June 22, 2023 and referred to in Draft EIR page 3.8.2, there is a warning sign concerning hazardous materials on the NW corner of the proposed Phase 2 site. This is not satisfactorily addressed in the Draft EIR.

3) We are uncertain of the stability and true testing of the fill materials and its ability to withstand physical and liquefication stresses as may be caused by earthquakes and extreme rain conditions and the like, as caused mud and water invasive damage to many homes to the immediate west of the Phase 1 site. The construction of the proposed retaining wall is not defined in the EIR and past performance of grading does not instill confidence in future design performance to keep present homes of the residents west of the proposed Arroyo Lago protected from mudslides and slush spill out onto our properties, causing dangerous and hazardous conditions.

Page 3700 ends

Phase 1 (Arroyo Lago) including multiple access roads, not only Busch Rd, but also El Charro.

Another drawing, their Fig. 7, shows a plan in more detail, also including the AOC 6 Busch PIT.

P 6262 Appendix. F

Note that in those plans, Arroyo Lago would have access to El Charro. This would be a positive step.

Note that the fill from Danville and Sunnyvale cover over the Busch Pond and sediment which from residents were previously runoff from Pleasanton Garbage company. The first, layer of import soil came from the Danville Site, and the upper layer (~18,000 cu. Ft.) came from Sunnyvale and was documented by Haley-Aldric to contain extremely hazardous contaminants.

It is known that, after multiple complaints from residents to Alameda County Vector Control about mosquitos breading in the water there, the pond area was filled in with the soil instead of using their specified tablets to kill the mosquito larva. The fill destroyed the pond which had been utilized for decades by seasonal migrating birds. (in AOC 6)

In addition, the fill also was on Policy 126 of the East County Area Plan, and was apparently filled in with imported material. The prior seasonal wetland was listed as PUBHx on the National Wetlands Inventory which would be impacted by such removal from this property.

It a riparian and seasonal wetland and should in no way have been removed by the responsible party. In that it actually was filled in, apparently without proper authority, this should create a plan of remedial action and no property should be allowed to be built on this wetland location.

Thank you for your consideration, and in particular re-consideration for elderly citizens who have reduced tolerance and more likely harmful impact resulting from the proposed Arroyo Lago development. We would not want to be occupants of this proposed development with its history of contaminants, industrial runoff, and sediments which might cause lane shifting and health hazards.

Sincerely, Carol Olson
1350 Chatham Court
Pleasanton, CA 94566

App F p 6409
App F p 6410
The maps here
from Appendix F
of the Draft EIR
show the
locations of the
soil fill from
Danville (2 ft ,
ave. 9””and
Sunnyvale ( 2.5
ft., ave 8”).

Submitted On:

Feb 13, 2025, 11:25AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: David
Last Name: Atwell
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 18, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 9
Comments February 13, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members
Subject: February 18 City Council Meeting – Annexation, Agenda Item 9 Dear Mayor Balch and City Council Members,
I am a resident of the Village of Ironwood, with my property abutting the west side of the proposed Arroyo Lago development. I am writing to express serious concerns about the project’s impact on our community, particularly the proposed retaining wall, fence, and landfill on the west end. This combination would raise the fence to approximately 14 feet above neighboring backyards, significantly affecting privacy, aesthetics, and safety for about 25 homes in this senior community.

A high-quality, precast concrete wall built by Ponderosa already exists at the west property line, effectively blocking noise and serving as a reliable property divider. The need for an additional retaining wall, fence, and landfill raises important questions about its necessity and impact on adjacent homes.

I have attended meetings over the past several years regarding this development and appreciate some of the positive changes that have been made. However, proposed alternatives to mitigate the impact of the 14-foot structure have been rejected. I believe a reasonable adjustment is possible and hope that we, as directly affected residents, can work with the city to find a more balanced solution.

If the city moves forward with annexation, resident safety and quality of life must remain a top priority. I urge the city to remain open to resident concerns and work collaboratively with the developer to adjust the wall, fence, and landfill plans to minimize the impact.

The residents of the Village of Ironwood—many of whom are seniors —deserve assurance that this project will not compromise their well- being.

Best regards,
David Atwell
Village of Ironwood Resident
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Upload File(s) February 13, 2025 Agenda 9.pdf
February 13, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members
Subject: February 18 City Council Meeting – Annexation, Agenda Item 9 Dear Mayor Balch and City Council Members,
I am a resident of the Village of Ironwood, with my property abutting the west side of the proposed Arroyo Lago development. I am writing to express serious concerns about the project’s impact on our community, particularly the proposed retaining wall, fence, and landfill on the west end. This combination would raise the fence to approximately 14 feet above neighboring backyards, significantly affecting privacy, aesthetics, and safety for about 25 homes in this senior community.

The residents of the Village of Ironwood—many of whom are seniors—deserve assurance that this project will not compromise their well-being.

Best regards,
David Atwell
Village of Ironwood Resident
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Submitted On:

Feb 14, 2025, 04:27AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Diana
Last Name: Atwell
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 18, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 9
Comments Mayor Balch February1, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members
Subject: February 4 City Council Meeting – Annexation, Agenda Item 12 Dear Mayor Balch and City Council Members,
I am a resident of the Village of Ironwood, with my property bordering the west side of the proposed Arroyo Lago development. I am writing to express additional concerns about the project’s impact on our community,
I want to express my EIR concerns, particularly its neglect to specifically consider impact on the most vulnerable members of our community, the elderly. I am not sure how I feel about annexation truthfully. Originally, I was a strong advocate, however if it becomes an easy way for Steve Riley's plans to get expedited, I will find it hard to support. If annexation takes place, I request a rezone plan allowing for a buffer zone between the senior community and this new development. After serving my country for 30 years in the USAF and moving around the country quite frequently, I was looking for a quiet place to settle down and enjoy the rest of my life. This project as it stands is anti-seniors, a detriment to their health and has been presented to us by Steve in a strong-armed way on several occasions. Below is what was discussed at the last county presentation a few months back.

The average age in our senior community is 76. This demographic faces unique challenges and are particularly sensitive to changes in their environment.

As a nurse for over 42 years, I have worked extensively with elderly patients. I know first-hand of their many challenges. Their mobility is often compromised, and they frequently rely on assist devices, such as walkers. They walk much slower than the general population, their vision and perception is often impaired, and they are significantly affected by stress and noise.

Research has shown that high levels of stress can lead to cognitive decline, exacerbating many conditions, especially dementia, blood pressure, sleep disturbances and other mental health issues, leading to decreased life expectancy.

For the record, there are numerous legal precedents set, (case laws), where courts have reversed support for development projects due to their negative impacts on elderly populations. To name a few:
• Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley
• Sierra Club v. County of San Diego
• Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento • Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County
These cases underscore the necessity of thorough environmental reviews that specifically consider health impacts on elderly residents.

It is the duty of local governments to mitigate risks and ensure that urban planning reflects the needs and safety of all community members. Buffer zones are critical between new developments and elderly communities, to reduce noise and enhance living conditions.

This is not just a preference; it’s a necessity. Anything less could be viewed as contributing to elder abuse. Several of our neighbors have already sought medical attention in response to this proposed project.

Increased traffic poses unreasonable risks to their well-being. I am truly worried that they will suffer fatal injuries from those cars speeding through yellow lights on the corner of Valley/Bush after having to now wait in longer lines to get through the light.

Lastly, adding many additional homes to our already stressed Pleasanton EMS system will severely impact EMS response times, putting our elderly at even greater risk. The EIR stated no significant impact to EMS on the community of which, I object.

In conclusion, I urge the Pleasanton leadership to create a community that respects and protects our senior residents. Our elderly residents deserve a living environment that supports their health, not one that jeopardizes it. They chose this senior community for a reason.

Their wastewater drainage plan for this piece of land is a very questionable design, that from our side of the fence is a disastrous and ridiculous one.

It is Disingenuous and rather disgusting that Steve Riley listed this property for sale while he must have thought that he was going to get a quick approval for his plans. Plans to sell off this project and run away from it would leave the city, new owner, and the elderly population to suffer the consequences which is quite appalling.

Lastly based on the last Pleasanton Counsel meeting involving this project, it was evident that one of your members (community development director) is in support of this developer and not the residents. She showed no compassion and led Karla Brown to believe that it was a done deal which was very disappointing to hear from a city official. Perhaps she should recuse herself from further discussions if she has a bias.

Thank you for your time.

Diana Atwell
1510 Chatham Place
Pleasanton Ca. 94566
Upload File(s) Mayor Balch February1.docx
Mayor Balch February1, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members
Subject: February 4 City Council Meeting – Annexation, Agenda Item 12

Dear Mayor Balch and City Council Members,

I am a resident of the Village of Ironwood, with my property bordering the west side of the proposed Arroyo Lago development. I am writing to express additional concerns about the project’s impact on our community,

I want to express my EIR concerns, particularly its neglect to speciﬁcally consider impact on the most vulnerable members of our community, the elderly. I am not sure how I feel about annexation truthfully. Originally, I was a strong advocate, however if it becomes an easy way for Steve Riley's plans to get expedited, I will ﬁnd it hard to support. If annexation takes place, I request a rezone plan allowing for a buffer zone between the senior community and this new development. After serving my country for 30 years in the USAF and moving around the country quite frequently, I was looking for a quiet place to settle down and enjoy the rest of my life. This project as it stands is anti-seniors, a detriment to their health and has been presented to us by Steve in a strong-armed way on several occasions. Below is what was discussed at the last county presentation a few months back.

The average age in our senior community is 76. This demographic faces unique challenges and are particularly sensitive to changes in their environment.

As a nurse for over 42 years, I have worked extensively with elderly patients. I know ﬁrst- hand of their many challenges. Their mobility is often compromised, and they frequently rely on assist devices, such as walkers. They walk much slower than the general population, their vision and perception is often impaired, and they are signiﬁcantly affected by stress and noise.

For the record, there are numerous legal precedents set, (case laws), where courts have reversed support for development projects due to their negative impacts on elderly populations. To name a few:
• Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley
• Sierra Club v. County of San Diego
• Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento • Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County
These cases underscore the necessity of thorough environmental reviews that speciﬁcally consider health impacts on elderly residents.

It is the duty of local governments to mitigate risks and ensure that urban planning reﬂects the needs and safety of all community members. Buffer zones are critical between new developments and elderly communities, to reduce noise and enhance living conditions.

Lastly, adding many additional homes to our already stressed Pleasanton EMS system will severely impact EMS response times, putting our elderly at even greater risk. The EIR stated no signiﬁcant impact to EMS on the community of which, I object.

Thank you for your time
This Distressed piece of land, once looked like swamp land when I moved in with a lake and wildlife frolicking around. This developer created a false look when he placed pumps to remove the ponds, which also removed the beautiful wildlife that frequently visited. Their wastewater drainage plan for this piece of land is a very questionable design, that from our side of the fence is a disastrous and ridiculous one.

Perhaps she should recuse herself from further discussions if she has a bias.

Thank you for your time.

Diana Atwell
1510 Chatham Place
Pleasanton Ca. 94566
Submitted On:

Feb 12, 2025, 04:34PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Tom
Last Name: Grudkowski
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 18, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 9
Comments See attached. Letter 2. More figures are provided in the next upload.

Upload File(s) T Grudkowski Feb 18 Comment letter _2.pdf January 31, 2025

To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members:

Subject: Feb 4 City Council Meeting re. annexation and update on Residential Development proposals • Second comment letter from Tom Grudkowski

My first letter has already been received and on your website. I neglected to include mention of some issues which deserve consideration. I greatly appreciate your approach toward solving some issues which have been discussed in detail last year and are included in our past comment letters for The Draft EIR. Links to those letters are in my first letter of January 28th. Thank you for your work on these items.

However, I did not see discussion of the following issues which are also rather important. 1) For Village at Ironwood homes which are located along the East wall boundary with the Planned Development, there is a 6 ft height difference between the Village land (PAD) and the Arroyo Lago land surface. At the boundary there is the Village wall followed by a 6 ft retaining wall, on top of which is an 8 ft "Good Neighbor Fence". This would result in a 14 ft wall facing the back of the Village homes. How would this fence be maintained if there is no space between the Arroyo Lago fence and the Village East Wall? Water and debris accumulation between these structures would need to be considered. Is there an alternate design which would remove this issue and leave the same or similar level of land on each side of the wall? The attached two drawings illustrate the issue for the cases of the County Plan and for the Annex plan.

2) What Pleasanton building standards are being excused in this revised plan?

3) Where would the ADUs be located? Hopefully not in the row of houses that face the Village East Wall. That would probably create nuisance levels of activity for the 55+ elderly community on the Village side of the wall.

Thank you for your consideration on these and other points that are mentioned here and in other letters.

Tom Grudkowski
Resident of the Village at Ironwood

6’ Retaining wall under ELEVATED
8’ “Good Neighbor Fence”
Arroyo Lago Example per ANNEX Plan?
Single Story next to East Wall
Base PAD height difference between Village at
Ironwood and Arroyo Lago
14 ft?
6 ft
fill
14’
10 ft
Drawing of the sectional view across the East
Wall, per the Builder’s plans
Submitted On:

Feb 12, 2025, 04:35PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Tom
Last Name: Grudkowski
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 18, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 9
Comments Figures for my Letter #2
Upload File(s) T Grudkowski Figs for Feb 18 Letter _2.pdf 1 Before After
Retaining wall under
“Good Neighbor Fence”
Arroyo Lago Example per Plan with County
(Rt. Elevation Opt. Outdoor room)
Village at Ironwood
Now
~8-11 ft between home
and wall for some
~ 7 ft
10 ft to roof edge
5’-8’
6 ft fill
26 - 30 ft
14’
10 ft
32 – 36 ft
Village
Ground to
their Roof

2 6’ Retaining wall under
ELEVATED 8’ “Good Neighbor Fence”
Arroyo Lago Example per ANNEX Plan ?
ELEVATED Single Story next to East Wall
Base PAD height difference between Village at Ironwood
existing grade and Arroyo Lago PAD = 6 ft
14 ft?
6 ft fill
14’
10 ft
Drawing of the sectional view across
the East Wall, per the Builder’s plans
Submitted On:

Feb 16, 2025, 09:58AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Tpm
Last Name: Grudkowski
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date City Council Regular Meeting on February 18, 2025 Agenda Item Number 9
Comments Please include the attached letter in the Arroyo Lago Discussion and distribute to the City Council Members. Also, please included under Public Comments for Section 9.

Upload File(s) Arroyo Lago Plan Harmful to Elderly Neigbors.pdf

Subject: Arroyo Lago Residential Project Comment Letter Elder Abuse – for elder residents of Ironwood under California Penal Code § 368 PC.

Dear Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, et. al.

Penal Code § 368 PC defines elder abuse in California as the physical or emotional abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of a victim 65 years of age or older. Note that the average age of Pleasanton Residents along the East Wall of the Village at Ironwood is 76 Years old. Even if there were not such a code, the issues would undoubtedly be harmful to elderly Pleasanton residents and would continue to be so for years!
Example Conditions:

Resident Age: The average age of residents along the East Wall of the (55+) Village at Ironwood is about 76 (and getting older), while for the Ironwood Garden Community is in the 70’s. I myself am over 76 years old. Many residents of the Ironwood communities suffer from age-related issues such as difficulty in walking, sight impairment, parkinsonism, recent surgeries causing slow movement, etc. which is mitigated by spending quality quiet time outdoors in sunlight when possible. Hearing issues are exacerbated by construction noise of earth moving equipment, building processes, etc. and increased traffic when using common electric scooters for transportation. These would impact physical as well as emotional well-being. Susceptibility to contaminants such as dust is notably exasperated with aging residents.

Emotional abuse or fear / anxiety: Existing residents are already exhibiting emotional anxiety and distress at the possibility of the ruin of their peaceful lifestyle which was expected and purchased in the Ironwood communities. Their ability to relax in the sun is feared to be eliminated, and rightfully their expectation would come to pass. Just the thought of such mental anguish and disturbing atmosphere within several feet of their property is stressful and emotionally harmful. The actual construction, environmental dust / contaminant pollution and land disturbance / movement and drainage issues and invasion of privacy would certainly cause distress and potential mental harm. Close proximity construction noise, ground shaking, unavoidable invasion onto existing Village property by overfly construction materials and soil, could likely disrupt sleep patterns of the elderly.

Physical Abuse: The inevitable increases in traffic and related accidents, noise and hearing impairment, lower quality of breathable-air due to construction are obvious. As depicted in the figure below, the proposed development with such small setback and raised land elevation, pose threat of accidental physical invasion from new backyards into the existing Village back areas. Note that additional enclosed patios would decrease the stated setback. There is a danger of possible rupture of the 6 ft raised land on the new lots possibly from earthquakes or other ground movement from weakened retaining wall and failing soil fill during construction, or later, causing encroachment of landfill into existing Village backyards and possible physical harm.

Financial Abuse: Loss of home value will likely result from decrease in property sales values for those near the proposed development because of the tremendous loss of enjoyable location and increase undoubtedly in noise from such close neighbors, both children and adults. Their back yards will be only several feet from a 14 ft fence and will suffer from a prison-like atmosphere as well as extremely annoying likely behavior only feet from their back walls. Other Ironwood homes, not next to the East Wall of the Village, would likely or certain to suffer from the more-impacted “comparables” when putting a house up for sale, since “comps” are used in evaluating market value of similar properties in the general area.

THIS APPARENT ABUSE WOLD BE A WILLFUL ACT, KNOWING THE SITUATION OF THE ELDERLY RESIDENTS NEARBY and should be subject to elder abuse under the subject California Penal code and harsh Health & Safety environmental, both during years of construction, as well as for their (possibly reduced) lifetimes.

Thank you for your good work in making the Arroyo Lago plan more suitable with the annexation plan, but not sufficient to eliminate the elder abuse and other issues described above. It would go a long way toward acceptability if the setback would be increased substantially, and environmental soil, air and quality-of-life issues were seriously addressed.

See the drawings below for a reality check on the proposed plan. Note that Optional back enclosed porches are not considered in the alleged new 15 ft setback.

Tom Grudkowski
24 year Pleasanton Resident
Resident of The Village at Ironwood
1594 Chatham Place,

Submitted On:

Feb 18, 2025, 11:59AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Igor
Last Name: Ginzburg
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date City Council Regular Meeting on February 18, 2025 Agenda Item Number Item #4
Comments Dear Pleasanton Planning Commission, Pleasanton City Council, Trumark Homes and Pleasanton Traffic Engineer,
Nita Trivedi, Harmit Toor and I attended the 1/22/2025 Planning Commission meeting, where I made a public comment consistent with our previous emails.

Splitting the Open Space
It’s great that the Planning Commission voted in favor of Trumark’s request to split the open space and we hope the City Council does the same at the upcoming 2/18/2025 meeting. This will allow Trumark to place park amenities like the playground next to Old Vineyard Trail where they will be safer and more accessible, and away from the dangerous traffic of Vineyard Ave. This is consistent with our previous public comments, including point #5 in our June 2023 letter (attached), which was signed by 40 residents of the adjacent neighborhoods.

Adding Bollards
During the Planning Commission meeting we learned from city staff that the fire department had concerns with the proposed location of the bollards on Manoir Ln closing off the cul-de-sac.

We think having the access road behind Neal accessible to cars can create problems. There will not be any houses facing that access road, and we’re concerned the bad activity (people parking and drinking, doing drugs, etc) on that access road will continue, spilling into the future park adjacent to it.

The access road is already closed off with bollards on one side. As a compromise, would it be possible to keep the cul-de-sac accessible, but close off the access road itself with bollards? Please see attached diagram.

For the cul-de-sac itself, the new houses facing Manoir Ln should help prevent misuse. Road segments along residential fence lines do not seem to deter misuse (indeed, most of the alcohol and drug paraphernalia we clean up is next to existing residential fences on the other side of the Manoir cul-de-sac). So, we’re concerned that on the latest “Alternative Split Park Conceptual Design” it appears that the proposed house on Lot 1 is rotated in such a way that it’ll have a long fence line along Manoir. We ask Trumark to make sure that’s not the case, possibly by placing the front yard along Manoir (like is done with the house at the end of the Frog Hill Ln cul-de-sac).

Road Safety
During the Planning Commission meeting, the commissioners acknowledged the dangers of exiting from Manoir Ln and Thiessen St onto Vineyard Ave, and suggested we contact the City Traffic Engineer. Quoting commissioner Vivek Mohan, “I agree these sideroads getting on to Vineyard, people are flying, instead of a 40 mile zone or whatever, people are going 60, 70 miles on that road.” Here are some concrete steps we think the City can take to make it safer to enter and exit our neighborhoods and the neighborhood Trumark is building:
- There is a “your speed” digital sign along Vineyard Ave coming out of town which is supposed to show the driver’s current speed, but has been broken for many years.

Please fix the “your speed” sign.
- The trees in front of the adjacent neighborhoods along Vineyard Ave significantly reduce visibility for drivers trying to turn out of Manoir and Thiessen. The foliage of California Pepper trees naturally hang low and grow towards the ground like a weeping willow. In hindsight, they should have been placed much farther from Vineyard Ave. The current clear sightlines across Neal are very helpful for road safety. It would be great for the City to
enforce a large setback for any trees or other obstruction on Neal along Vineyard Ave going forward, so that Trumark and the future homeowners association on Neal can’t make the same mistake that was made on the adjacent parcels. After the most recent accident (3-car accident where one of the cars flipped over) we went out and trimmed the trees as best we could, but they’ve already regrown.
- When we make the right turn from Vineyard Ave onto Manoir Ln or Thiessen St, it’s hard to sufficiently slow down due to the impatient high speed tailgaters on Vineyard, who will pass on the left (into oncoming traffic) as we’re trying to turn right. There is a shoulder on Manoir Ln that we try to use as a turn lane, but it’s too narrow and too short to be safe.

It would be great for the City to widen that shoulder along Neal into a true turn lane as part of the Neal redevelopment.

The turn lane into Thiessen can also be improved.
- As more residential neighborhoods are added along this stretch of Vineyard, it would be great to add traffic calming measures, like raised concrete medians, similar to those that exist further into town. This would reduce speeds, prevent cars from passing over the double yellow, and also discourage cars from doing donuts in the area at night time.

Please see our previous emails and point #10 in our June 2023 letter for reasons for improving road safety at these intersections.

Sincerely,
Igor Ginzburg
On behalf of the residents that signed the June 2023 letter (cc-d) Upload File(s) Proposed Compromise Location for Bollards.jpg Letter to City Council from Residents of Neighborhoods next to the Neal Property
Dear Members of Pleasanton City Council, City Staff, Planning Department, Planning Commission and PUSD Board,
We, the undersigned residents of neighborhoods next to the Neal Property, have had several neighborhood meetings regarding the site following the City’s rezoning.

Mayor Brown and Vice Mayor Balch each attended one of these meetings and saw the large turnout and level of interest in this topic among the residents. We’d be happy to set up additional meetings for any City Council Members or Staff that would like to hear direct feedback from our community.

In these meetings, there has been a lot of consensus among the neighbors about the points we’d like to get across to the City about the recent rezoning and future development of the Neal Property. We summarize the points below.

Point #1: Notification via yellow Postcards for Future Rezonings Point #2: Vision to make Neal Property a more modest version of our neighborhoods Point #3: Stick to the adopted zoning of 21 to 28 houses Point #4: Enforce Lower Square Footage than Adjacent Less-Dense Neighborhoods Point #5: Neighborhood Park next to Old Vineyard Trail
Point #6: Comply with the “Vineyard Village” concept in the Specific Plan Point #7: Utilize and connect existing external roads (Thiessen St and Manoir Ln) Point #8: Respect setbacks and minimum lot dimensions
Point #9: Have a mix of 2-story and 1-story houses like the surrounding neighborhoods Point #10: Improve road safety of intersections with Vineyard Ave Point #11: The City should give guidance to the Land Owner/Developer Point #1: Notification via yellow Postcards for Future Rezonings Over the years, we’ve all received dozens of yellow notification cards about development plans in the Vineyard Corridor area (including small single-house developments that did not deviate from the specific plan and were not particularly close to our homes).

We don't understand why there were no yellow notification cards sent out for such a dramatic rezoning to 28 houses right next to our neighborhoods.

As far as we can tell, not a single homeowner in the surrounding neighborhoods was aware of the City's rezoning plans until right before final approval (when one undersigned resident received an email from a community watchdog group). We previously felt that years of notification cards built June 1, 2023 1
up a lot of goodwill with the community, but this one failure makes us feel like it was just years of lulling us into a false sense of security.

Per Vice Mayor Balch, this is official City policy. Apparently the City does not send notification cards when material rezoning is being considered (especially if a lot of sites are being rezoned), and only sends cards out once the rezoned projects are almost completely planned and hard to change. We ask the City Council to change this policy and send cards to residents living next to sites that the City plans to rezone.

The new policy might mean that a lot of Pleasanton residents will get cards in years that Pleasanton does RHNA rezoning, but we think sending those cards out and getting feedback from Residents would be a good use of City resources.

Pleasanton currently goes above and beyond by having a 1000 foot instead of 500 foot state minimum notification policy for proposed projects. Having notifications for rezoning would be another way to go above and beyond, and would put Pleasanton in line with other cities like Concord which have a rezoning notification.

In a Mar 17th email (after the rezoning), Ellen Clark offered to notify some of the neighbors directly about any future Neal-related public hearings or meetings. That sounds great. Please include all the undersigned residents in the notifications.

In addition to notification of public meetings, it would also be great to get notification of any public documents that include material changes to the future of the site. For example, over the last year the plans for the Neal Property changed from 10 houses, to 25 houses, to 28 houses (see attached PDFs), and it would have been good if the community was notified of such important changes.

The Vineyard Corridor is a small, tight knit community and we think we'll be able to provide valuable input that will help make the project a success for all the stakeholders (PUSD, the CIty, the surrounding neighborhoods, and the future homeowners on the site).

Point #2: Vision to make Neal Property a more modest version of our neighborhoods During the City Council Meeting on January 26th, the Mayor and City Council described how the Neal Property at 28 houses would be a denser and ‘relatively more affordable’ version of our neighborhoods. Since the re-zoning was done as part of RHNA, getting something more modest would be appropriate.

The undersigned residents have embraced this vision, and want to do our best to help the City arrive at something that is more modest, but still fits and matches the rest of the neighborhoods and the Vineyard Corridor overall. That is the motivation for this letter.

Our main concern is that we don’t want the Neal Property to end up with something that maximizes land owner revenue, but is not any less expensive than the adjacent neighborhoods and doesn’t fit in with the adjacent neighborhoods.

June 1, 2023 2
For an example of this negative outcome, we can look at some residential developments in Dublin.

These developments typically have:
● Giant houses on small, skinny lots.
● Unusable driveways.
● No real front-yards.
● Not much space between the houses.
● Narrow streets.
● No single-story houses.

One example is “The Knolls and The Bluffs at Tassajara Hills by Toll Brothers” developments in Dublin:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7406349,-121.8563698,160m/data=!3m1!1e3 These developments are at around 4.6 houses to the acre, but the houses actually have the same square footage (3,700 to 4,600 sq) as most of the houses in the two neighborhoods adjacent to the Neal Property. These developments have all the aspects listed above that would make them not fit in with our neighborhoods.

Another example is the “Wallis Ranch” development. One of the undersigned households moved from the Wallis Ranch development in Dublin to the Chateau Country Estates neighborhood adjacent to the Neal property 1 year ago to avoid the above issues.

Point #3: Stick to the adopted zoning of 21 to 28 houses In a January 9th letter (attached) PUSD asks for even greater density than what the City rezoned to so far. They've requested 4 houses per acre on all 10.6 acres, so 42 houses, with 1.5 acres reserved for a park.

This works out to 42 houses on 9 acres, or 4.7 houses per acre (vs 2.1 for the surrounding neighborhoods). Notice that at 4.7 it would be slightly denser than the Dublin neighborhood.

June 1, 2023 3

Including open space, 42 houses on 10.6 acres is over 4 times as dense as the surrounding neighborhoods. This is not a denser version of the surrounding neighborhoods, but something completely unrelated to the surrounding neighborhoods.

As mentioned in previous letters, at 42 houses, this development would be completely incompatible with the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan . On page 22 the Specific Plan calls for the "more accessible, flatter portions of the Specific Plan Area, north of the existing Vineyard Avenue" be developed as "individual neighborhoods with a design character compatible with the 'vineyard village' concept described later in the Plan" with "single-family homes on 10,000-square foot minimum-sized lots." The plan also has minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks on page

25. With such high density and barely any open space, PUSD's latest proposal is not even close to complying with the 'vineyard village' concept and minimum lot requirements.

On page 118 under "Specific Plan Compliance" the Specific Plan says "no subdivision ... shall be constructed within the Plan Area which is not in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan".

So the Neal Property is not exempt from having to substantially conform with the concepts in the plan.

So it’s important that the City rejects this request from PUSD.

Point #4: Enforce Lower Square Footage than Adjacent Less-Dense Neighborhoods Given how houses are priced mainly on square footage, we think the best mechanism to ensure that Neal is more affordable than the adjacent neighborhoods is to make the houses smaller (to go along with the smaller lots).

With the 40% Floor to Area ratio in the Objective Design Standards and average lots of 10k square feet, Neal could end up on average with 4,000 square foot houses. For reference, the 4 house models at the adjacent Reserve at Pleasanton neighborhood are at 3,822sf (Cabernet), 3,850sf (Merlot), 3,909sf (Riesling), 4,160sf (Syrah), (although some sites do have ADUs that raise the square footage).

We’re concerned that having houses the same sizes as most of ours on much smaller lots could lower the resale value of our homes in the adjacent neighborhoods without providing anything meaningfully more affordable to the new residents.

We ask the City Council to adopt a lower Floor to Area ratio for Neal that’s more inline with the surrounding neighborhoods and matches the semi-rural nature of the Vineyard Corridor.

Point #5: Neighborhood Park next to Old Vineyard Trail
In the January 9th letter (attached) PUSD proposed using some of the open space in the Neal property for a park. We are generally supportive of the idea, although with some different details.

June 1, 2023 4
It’s unclear if PUSD plans a private park just for Neal residents, or a park that’s open to all. A public park would match the City’s previous plans:
● The Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan called for a 20-acre Community Park that has never materialized.
● As many of the undersigned residents were aware of, and as Concilmember Testa mentioned during the January 26th meeting, there was a promise made (in hindsight apparently non-binding) that if the Neal property didn’t become a school it would become a park.
● The City’s “Parks and Rec Master Plan” on page 34 says "Ideally, everyone in the City would live within convenient walking distance (typically one-half mile) of a Neighborhood Park."
Tawny Park is the closest Neighborhood Park to the Vineyard Corridor. It's about 1.5 to 2 miles away from most Vineyard Corridor Subarea 2 and 3 residents, which is not really walkable.

With the dump site unavailable due to the methane issue, the rezoning of the Neal property might be the only foreseeable opportunity for Vineyard Corridor residents to get access to a Neighborhood Park. The Neal Property is within half a mile of basically all Vineyard Corridor Subarea 2 and 3 residents.

We ask the City to incentivise the landowner to make some of the 3 acres of open space into a Neighborhood Park. For example the City could offer to build and maintain the park, which could provide value for the landowner in reducing development cost and reducing HOA fees. This might also involve the City acquiring the land for the Park from the landowner.

The Vineyard Corridor residents have paid fees and decades of taxes that were meant to go towards the 20 acre Community Park. We think using some of those monies for a small (say 1.5 acre) Neighborhood park would be fair.

We’re also concerned about the proposed location of the park. The attached PUSD letter proposes having the park on a strip of land next to Vineyard Ave. The letter depicts a playground next to the road on that strip. This plan completely disregards the realities of the vineyard corridor.

The Neal property is located next to a 2-mile rural stretch of Vineyard Ave with no traffic lights or other traffic calming measures and a 45 mph speed limit. Cars routinely go 55 or 60 miles an hour along this stretch, and the lane adjacent to the proposed "park" has a curve with limited visibility right before the site. Placing a playground with children so close to such a road would be very dangerous and irresponsible. Such a park would not be used by any responsible parent or grandparent.

Rather than a long, thin park along Vineyard Ave as PUSD proposed, we think it would be safer and more accessible to have the park on the other side of the property next to the Old Vineyard Trail . This would give walking and biking access to the park to Vineyard Corridor residents, and avoid the dangers of Vineyard Ave.

June 1, 2023 5
Point #6: Comply with the “Vineyard Village” concept in the Specific Plan As mentioned above, the Specific Plan calls for the "more accessible, flatter portions of the Specific Plan Area, north of the existing Vineyard Avenue" be developed as "individual neighborhoods with a design character compatible with the 'vineyard village' concept described later in the Plan". On page 36 it says “The site-planning arrangement of vineyard village is one of buildings organized in a clustered fashion and generally buffered from adjacent roadways and other land uses by vineyards.”
The City has enforced this requirement on all developments along Vineyard Ave, such that all of our neighborhoods have stretches of vineyard along Vineyard Ave (both for aesthetics and as a safety buffer). While the City Council zoned the Neal property with relatively less open space (about 30%) than the surrounding parcels (about 50%), we think it’s important that some of this open space (maybe 1.5 acres) is used for a vineyard along Vineyard Ave . Without that vineyard, we think the Neal development would not fit in with the existing neighborhoods and would not comply with the Specific Plan.

In the surrounding neighborhoods the vineyard is owned by a single, large, private estate in each neighborhood (which is also the largest house on the largest lot in the neighborhood). This may not be possible on Neal due to the high density and the small open space. Some possible options:
● Going with the “assumed” 25 houses or less may leave enough space for an estate. ● The vineyard can instead be maintained by the new neighborhood’s HOA. (In this case, having the City maintain the neighborhood park would help a lot, so the HOA doesn’t have to maintain both.)
On page 39 the Specific Plan includes specifications on the housing styles, to reflect “a European ‘wine country’ architectural flavor”, with specific details like “Tile or slate roofing”, “Light to medium earth tone colors”, etc. Following these specifications would make the new neighborhood match the existing developments. We’re not sure how the Design Standards adopted by the City interact with these existing specifications, but we encourage the City to make sure these specifications still apply (or that there is some other mechanism to avoid trendy styles that don’t match the surrounding neighborhoods).

Point #7: Utilize and connect existing external roads (Thiessen St and Manoir Ln) Building internal roads and sidewalks on the 7 acres zoned for housing can be expensive and would reduce lot size. Luckily the Neal property has two existing external roads (Thiessen St and Manoir Ln) with existing sidewalks that most of the houses can face. We think this would be a win for all parties.

This would be similar to how one of the nearby neighborhoods has houses facing Safreno Way.

One of the upsides of having houses facing Thiessen St and Manoir Ln is that it will discourage the current nuisance uses of those streets: hangout spots where teenagers go drinking, people do drugs, people repair junky cars, etc.

June 1, 2023 6
We also think that having houses facing Thiessen St and Manoir Ln will better connect the new development with the existing neighborhoods, making our new neighbors closer to the existing community.

As a proof of concept, here’s a layout that incorporates the above ideas. The layout includes a 1.5 acre Neighborhood Park along Old Vineyard Trail and a 1.5 acre vineyard along Vineyard Ave.

The internal roads are 30 feet wide plus 5 foot sidewalks on each side (like the surrounding neighborhoods).
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?mid=1gwcB5ku-9Xs3v4JT DEgp7vHuqiNWw usp=sharing By minimizing internal roads, this layout achieves an average (and minimum) lot size of 10k square feet.

The above layout extends Vineyard Heights Ln, connecting Thiessen St and Manoir Ln. This should make it safer for Residents to exit the neighborhood (see Point #10 ). We also think that it would allow the existing access road adjacent to the Old Vineyard Trail to be removed (along with the associated retention wall). That would allow the Neighborhood Park to connect directly and at the same grade to Old Vineyard Trail. It would also make the interface between Old Vineyard Trail and any houses backing onto it from the Neal property the same as in the surrounding neighborhoods.

We encourage the City to consider these ideas when working with the developer on a layout.

June 1, 2023 7

Point #8: Respect setbacks and minimum lot dimensions
We think the insufficient minimum lot sizes, dimensions and setbacks in the Dublin neighborhoods mentioned above is what makes them look and feel so claustrophobic and incompatible with the semi-rural aesthetic of the Vineyard Corridor. More concretely, without usable driveways, our new neighbors would be forced to park on the streets, including on streets in our existing neighborhoods.

While the R-1-8500 zoning the City specified for Neal has somewhat smaller minimum requirements than the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan, we think they are still reasonable. We ask the City to hold its ground on these requirements and not lower them any further going forward.

Point #9: Have a mix of 2-story and 1-story houses like the surrounding neighborhoods All the surrounding neighborhoods have a mix of 2-story and 1-story houses, while the Dublin developments only have 2-story houses. The main problem with only having 2-story houses is that it excludes community members that have a hard time with stairs, making the neighborhoods less diverse.

The other problem with having only 2-story houses is that it gives the streets an overbuilt and claustrophobic look which would be out of place with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mixing in some smaller 1-stories would improve affordability and better match the surrounding neighborhoods.

Point #10: Improve road safety of intersections with Vineyard Ave We believe the existing intersections that connect the Neal property to Vineyard Ave (both Manoir Ln and Thiessen St) are currently unsafe.

When traveling out of town on Vineyard Ave (which has a high speed limit) turning right on to Manoir or Thiessen requires slowing down. The importance of slowing down will increase if the Neal development adds houses facing these streets. Unfortunately, Vineyard Ave often has tailgaters that pull dangerous maneuvers (like swerving into oncoming traffic) when we try to slow down. We think adding full sized right turn pockets on Vineyard Ave for both of these intersections will significantly improve safety, and should be paired with the Neal Development.

Additionally, turning left out of Thiessen St is particularly dangerous, due to the curve blocking visibility of traffic traveling out of town. One undersigned resident had both of their children get into accidents trying to turn left out of Thiessen. We think connecting Manoir and Thiessen by, say, extending Vineyard Heights Ln like we did in our diagram above will make it possible for residents facing Thiessen to exit via the relatively safer left turn off of Manoir Ln. This applies to both existing residents and new Neal property residents.

June 1, 2023 8
As the population of the Vineyard Corridor grows significantly with the Neal property development it might make sense to take this opportunity to add some traffic calming measures that would improve safety. Some options to consider:
● Add a stop sign or a traffic light at Manoir Ln, to give residents a truly safe way to exit the neighborhood. (Unlike Thiessen, Manoir Ln should have enough visibility for Vineyard Ave drivers to see and respect the traffic light).
● Add a raised median to Vineyard Ave to prevent the currently dangerous practice of cars crossing the double-yellow to pass when people are turning or going the speed limit.

Point #11: The City should give guidance to the Land Owner/Developer We’re concerned that the current land owner, PUSD, and their advisors don’t have a good understanding of what they own and what they’re allowed to build there.

For example, in the diagram in their January 9th letter (attached), PUSD proposed building a park partially on land they do not own. In particular, the land next to the corner of Manoir Ln and Vineyard Ave belongs to the Reserve at Pleasanton HOA (it’s parcel 946-4619-28). That parcel holds a sign for the Reserve neighborhood and landscaping maintained by the HOA. Per the attached City Planning Documents, the City Council only rezoned parcel 946-4619-1 which is indeed owned by PUSD. See the assessor map and the attached City Planning Documents for the actual boundaries of PUSD’s parcel.

Another example is the “Vineyard Village” concept in the specific plan. The PUSD letter states that “With respect to the Vineyard Ave. property, we believe that the requirement of a 3-acre park and the resulting loss of housing density is unsupported by any priority city planning efforts including a complete lack of evidence in the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan…” It’s great that PUSD acknowledges they’re subject to the Specific Plan, but someone familiar with the Specific Plan would be aware of the “Vineyard Village” concept.

In both of these examples, it’s clear that the City had a better understanding of the issues than PUSD. That’s not surprising, since PUSD, while working exclusively in Pleasanton, is an educational institution and any developer they work with will not be working exclusively in Pleasanton.

We think it’s incumbent on the City Council and City Staff to make use of their deep knowledge of Pleasanton zoning to proactively give guidance to PUSD and their developer on the requirements their plans have to satisfy (hopefully including some of the points we made above).

We think it would be a mistake for the City to passively wait for the developer to submit plans before checking if they comply. Waiting till that point has a high chance of either the developer having to waste money reworking their plan, or the Neal property being developed in a way that doesn’t comply (to the detriment of the City and its residents).

Conclusion
June 1, 2023 9
We hope the City Council and City Staff embrace our suggestions for making the Neal Property development a success for all the stakeholders.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned Residents of neighborhoods next to the Neal Property Igor and Alyssa Ginzburg
10-year Pleasanton Residents
Reserve at Pleasanton Neighborhood

Mahesh Mattupalli and Navyatha Madugula
3-year Pleasanton Residents
Reserve at Pleasanton Neighborhood

Luca and Tamara Reni
17-year Pleasanton Residents
Reserve at Pleasanton Neighborhood
(10-years)

Harmit and Dimple Toor
16-year Pleasanton Residents
Chateau Country Estates at Pleasanton
Neighborhood

Tracy and Scott Walthour
10-year Pleasanton Residents
Reserve at Pleasanton Neighborhood

Rupal and Nita Trivedi
14 year Pleasanton Residents
Chateau Country Estates

Phil and Kathy Duncan
8 year Pleasanton residents
Reserve at Pleasanton

Mohammad and Seema Hanif
23-year Pleasanton residents
Reserve at Pleasanton

Jeff and Ashley Alves
11 year Pleasanton Residents
Chateau Country Estates

Linda & Anthony Brunetti
3 year Pleasanton Resident/Custom Home
Builder
Winding Oaks Drive

Chris and Linh Walker
9 year Pleasanton residents
Reserve at Pleasanton

Gaurav & Jayee
2 Yr resident
Chateau Country Estates

June 1, 2023 10

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – February 18, 2025

Regular Meeting
Agenda Item #10 (Accept the FY 2024/25 Mid-Year Budget Update report and adopt a resolution approving FY 2024/25 budget amendments)

1. What does the City do with investm ent disbursements and where do the revenues go?

A. For investment earnings, the income is allocated to the General Fund and other City funds such as the Water, Sewer, and Low-Income Housing Funds based on the cash balance in each fund. The income is reinvested or used to fund operations and capital projects.

2. Will we have expended all of the COVID relief funds prior to our next budget cycle?
A. The City received $8.6M in COVID funds, which were spent on essential services in FY 2021/22 and FY 2022/23.

3. What are the "All other expenses" as i ndicated in Tables 5 and 6? (pages 5 & 6)

A. All other expenses include operating expenses such as salary and benefits, contract services, utilities, supplies and materials, equipment, gasoline, and other miscellaneous expenses.

4. How much were the matching grants that went toward the command and evidence vehicles and how much came from other City funds? A. The two command and crisis vehicles for the Police Department are on-site but not ready to be deployed due to communications that need to be installed.

Both the command and crime scene investigation vehicles were purchased from COPS/Law Enforcement Services Fund grant money with no City contribution or matching funds.

5. What is the status of the library outr each vehicle? Are we still pursuing this with our budget constraints?
A. The Library and Recreation Mobile Vehicle is anticipated to arrive as early as this week, following nearly two years of manufacturing delays. This vehicle was purchased through a supporting grant from the California State Library.

The outreach vehicle will not increase programs offered by the Library and Recreation Department; instead, existing staff will take the programs the City already offers to offsite locations to reach those most in need in our community.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 6. Is the City still leasing vehicles?
A. Yes, the City is still leasing vehicles. The City started leasing vehicles several years ago due to insufficient funding for vehicle replacement, which has allowed the City to acquire vehicles when deemed immediately necessary (e.g., to meet CARB requirements, etc.) As financially feasible, the City is purchasing many of the vehicles when the lease terms end. If funding is available in the future, the City plans to purchase the vehicles instead of leasing.

7. What makes up the increase in expenditure of $2.9M?
A. The increase in expenditures in other funds is mainly due to a $1.5M adjustment in the Law Enforcement Services Fund (from grant funding received), consisting of $1.33 million for the command center and crime scene investigation vehicles that have been delivered, $0.18M to fund the police radio information management system, and $0.5M increase in grant- related expenditures. There were also expenditure adjustments in the Water, Sewer, Vehicle Replacement, Measure D, and Low-Income Housing Funds.

8. What is the purpose of the Garba ge Reserve fund and why the transfer? A. The Pleasanton Garbage Reserve Fund is used to account for proceeds from Pleasanton Garbage Services (PGS), including the Rate Reserve Calculation and vehicle mitigation impact fee approved by the Council in May 2024, effective in FY 2024/25. The proceeds from the new vehicle impact fee is intended for street-related projects and that is why $1.1M transfer to the Street CIP Fund is being proposed.

9. Please confirm, the prior budget had a larger withdrawal from the Rainy-Day Reserve to balance the budget (was to be $4.17M, and now, with the improved revenue (and constrained expenses), staff is suggesting reducing the withdrawal from the Rainy-Day Reserve (to now be $3.08M).

A. Yes, the budgeted transfer was $4.2M and the proposed adjustment is to reduce the transfer by $1.1M to $3.1M.
i. What is the balance of the Rainy-Day Reserve before and after the proposed adjustment?
A. The balance is about $3.5M a fter the proposed $3.1M withdrawal. ii. Why is it called Capital Reserves Fund, when did it change from Rainy- Day Reserve?
A. Funds in the Rainy Day Reserve are intended to fund capital projects.

There have been discussions at City Council meetings that the current title (Rainy Day Reserve) does not make clear the intent of this

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
3 reserve, such that it is more appropriate to label this reserve as the Capital Reserve.

10. What is the Misc. CIP General?
A. The Miscellaneous CIP Fund primarily receives contributions from the General Fund to be used for design and construction of facilities and infrastructure as adopted in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). i. Please confirm, the prior CIP was to be funded from General Fund operations $2.47M and now will be able to be funded $3.47M with the proposed transfer? If not, how much was/is CIP funded?
A. The available funds for capital projects are only $2M, or $3M if the City Council approves the proposed budget adjustments. $0.47M was for a payment to the PUSD for the Foothill High School Southbound Left Turn Lane project completed prior to the current fiscal year. ii. Why is the language now Misc. C apital Fund? Why is it not CIP? A. The fund name is Miscellaneous C apital Improvement Programs (CIP) Fund and is also sometimes referred to as the Miscellaneous Capital Fund.

11. How much is Repair & Replacement funded in the current year? Did it change? What is its balance?
A. $3.3M is included in the current budget. There is no change from the mid- term budget approved by the City Council in May 2024. As of June 30, 2024, the available fund balance in the Repair & Replacement Funds totaled $24.8M.

12. How much is the Management and Confidential annual salary and cost of living adjustments being removed/offset in expenses?
A. Approximately $1.4M was removed fo r the expected cost of living increase and step increase.

13. What is the GASB 87 & 96 adjustments and what/why/how do they lead to approximately $1.5M increase in expenses?
A. GASB 87 (leases) and GASB 96 (subscription-based information technology arrangements) were implemented in recent years. At the time the FY 2024/25 budget was adopted, expenditures such as capital outlay and debt services related to these new accounting standards were not included in the budget.

The $1.5M is estimated based on transactions incurred in the prior fiscal year.

It should be noted that certain revenue adjustments are also being proposed

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
4 in the mid-year report due to the implementation of these two accounting pronouncements. Budgeting for these expenses will avoid having a budget variance at year-end in which actual expenses significantly exceed budget.

Notably, given the past several years’ increase in online platforms and programs used to deliver City services, staff has been proactively working to constrain these costs, including regular review of subscriptions and licenses, to reduce this expense.

MEMORANDUM

Date: February 14, 2025

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager

Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development

Subject: February 18, 2025, Agenda Item No. 9: Receive updates on residential development proposals on two properties in East Pleasanton outside the City Limits

At its February 4, 2025, regular meeting, the above-referenced item was continued to the City Council’s meeting on February 18, 2025. This supplemental memo addresses City Council questions received after the February 4 meeting.

1: Traffic Report – Does the traffic report include analysis/information for the East Lakes project as both an age-restricted and not age-restricted project? The traffic analysis was started in mid-December and includes 14 model runs. The modeling was already underway when staff were informed of the possible alternative housing types.

Instead of altering the modeling assumptions, staff elected to retain the senior housing (age- restricted) assumption and evaluate any changes in housing type after the modeling was completed. The modeling data shows a four-lane El Charro Road is necessary prior to any development of East Lakes; any intensification of trip generation would adjust the cost sharing percentages but not the timing of the roadway.

2: Has Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD) taken a position on the project(s)? No, to date the PUSD board or staff have not taken a formal position on the project(s).

2.a: Does PUSD have capacity in the school system?
Staff discussed the proposed preliminary projects with PUSD. School district staff indicated that, due to declining enrollment, the school district expects to have sufficient capacity for additional students generated from the projects. Residential development in East Pleasanton could, however, create challenges for elementary school boundaries due to projected future enrollment at individual schools. Mohr Elementary School would have the greatest capacity to absorb students from new East Pleasanton development, however, improved vehicle and bicycle/pedestrian connections from East Pleasanton to Mohr Elementary School would be necessary to provide convenient school access while minimizing traffic impacts.

2.b: Does the City have concerns about traffic impacts from more students at schools? City and PUSD staff work together frequently to address school congestion issues. Traffic to/from school sites is not specifically analyzed when evaluating a development project; an

Page 2 of 4 ends

increase in student population due to new home development is normally addressed by the school district. The school district includes City input when evaluating its school boundaries and when developing its school modifications. Similarly, PUSD input is incorporated into the City’s housing element update and other projects that could impact the student population.

3: Has the developer (either independently or through the CEQA process) completed geotechnical work to explore issues related to soils and stability in an area previously used for mining?
Yes. Section 3.6 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) as prepared by Alameda County for Arroyo Lago discusses "Geology and Soils". This discussion was based on two reports prepared by ENGEO dated April 16, 2024 (revised June 27, 2024) and May 18, 2023. The ENGEO reports also reference earlier reports by other qualified consultants that date back to 2007. The ENGEO reports specifically evaluated soil conditions within the boundary of Arroyo Lago, but did not evaluate vacant land east of Arroyo Lago where the East Lakes subdivision is proposed.

The ENGEO reports describe the prior use of the property as a mining quarry with open pit excavations and dirt access roads. The northern pit extended 160 feet below the ground surface and was later backfilled in 1993. The southern pit extended 50 to 70 feet below the ground surface and was backfilled in 2013. The backfilling was performed according to a Surface Mining Permit Reclamation Plan issued by Alameda County, although the type of soil material used, and the method of placement/compaction, was not well documented.

To make the property suitable for residential construction, ENGEO recommends a "surcharge program" be employed to compress the soil in the vicinity of the former pits. The surcharge program relies on additional soil placed on top of building pads to force settlement in advance of home construction. Although the depth of additional soil varies by location, up to 14 feet of soil could be placed atop building pads for a duration of up to a year. The settlement will be monitored by regular surveying until the desired settlement is achieved. This additional soil would then be removed and off-hauled.

ENGEO also evaluated other potential issues such as expansive soil, earthquake faulting, and liquefaction. The soil at the property contains expansive clay which is common in Pleasanton. Seasonal fluctuations in moisture content have been addressed with specific recommendations for the home foundations to guard against soil expansion/contraction.

Earthquake faults, while prevalent in California, are not specifically relevant at the property given the distance to the nearest known fault; liquefaction, which can cause sudden settlement of the soil during a seismic event, is unlikely to occur given the depth of groundwater and cohesion of the soil.

As a result of ENGEO's analysis, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 which requires the developer to prepare an updated design-level geotechnical exploration and assessment. The recommendations from the assessment shall be implemented during construction including grading and excavation. By implementing this mitigation measure, the environmental impact associated with the geology and soils at the property is reduced to less than significant.

Page 3 of 4 ends

4. Do we have a synopsis of the issues that have come from other residential areas served by the County (Happy Valley, Remen Tract, and Castlewood)? The city is frequently approached by owners of parcels within the Castlewood, Happy Valley and the Remen Tract areas seeking to connect to City water and/or sewer services. Applicants are usually seeking connections to support property development (e.g., subdivision of land, construction of a new home, or significant enlargement of an existing home). In other cases, a property owner may have an existing on-site well or septic system that is aging, expensive to repair/expand, or may have failed. Connections to City water and/or sewer lines are granted through Out of Area Service Agreements (OASA), alternatively referred to as Preannexation Agreements.

Although an OASA provides a convenient method to allow property owners to take advantage of public utilities (well and septic systems are inherently less desirable from an operations, maintenance, and public health perspective), allowing such connections places burdens on City services, and facilitates growth in areas typically poorly served by public services (e.g., law enforcement, fire protection). More broadly, recipients of OASA remain residents of Alameda County while taking advantage of City water and sewer services, and in all likelihood, Pleasanton schools, parks, streets, and other amenities. These County residents do not contribute the same share of property taxes as properties in Pleasanton, are not subject to City development requirements (except where required to abide by them by policy), code enforcement or similar authority available to the City within its boundaries, and neither elect nor are represented by City of Pleasanton officials.

Staff generally recommend prioritizing applications of OASA based on health and safety considerations (e.g., failing septic system, demonstration of unacceptable contamination in groundwater), and deprioritizing/discouraging OASA for the sole purpose of subdivision, major expansion of a home that requires additional sewer or water capacity, or construction of additional units on a property.

The Castlewood community is currently connected to and served by City of Pleasanton water.

The sewer collection system is owned and operated by the private property owner’s association. Sewer flow is pumped to Pleasanton’s system and ultimately pumped to the DSRSD treatment plant.

5. Describe the elevation change between the Ironwood development and the proposed Arroyo Lago project, including the proposed fence heights.

The Arroyo Lago preliminary plans submitted to City staff do identify a grade change between Ironwood and Arroyo Lago ranging from approximately 6.1 feet to 1.8 feet. The higher elevation occurs near the north end of Arroyo Lago, which adjoins 1558 and 1564 Chatham Place; the site then slowly descends (traveling south) to a difference of 1.8 feet at 1344 Chatham Place. The Arroyo Lago project’s civil engineering team has designed the on-site sewer system to flow from the northern portion of the site toward Busch Road and connect to the sewer system in Busch Road, resulting in increased grades/pad heights at the northern portion of the site.

The Ironwood residents currently have a 7-foot-tall stucco wall that will remain in place. Due to the grade difference described above, the Arroyo Lago project proposes to construct a retaining wall on its side, ranging from 6.1 feet to 1.8 feet tall, along with a 6-foot-tall ‘good

Page 4 of 4 ends

neighbor’ fence. The approximate total wall/fence heights on the Arroyo Lago project site would range from 12.1 feet to 7.8 feet tall. Stated another way, the Ironwood residents near the north end would see a total of 12.1 feet of wall/fencing if the Arroyo Lago project is built, as compared to the 7-foot-tall wall they have today. The Ironwood residents at the southern portion of the site would see less than 1 foot of additional wall/fencing above their existing 7- foot-tall wall.

MEM

ORANDUM
Date: F
ebruary 18, 2025
To: May
or and City Council
From: G
erry Beaudin, City Manager
Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Subje
ct: February 18, 2025, Agenda Item No. 9: Receive updates on residential develo
pment proposals on two properties in East Pleasanton outside the City Limits – CEQA-Related Supplemental Information
This supplemental memorandum provides additional information to address City Council questions received after the February 4, 2025, meeting, related to the CEQA review of the projects.

Februar
y 4, 2025, Letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (Adams Broadwell) Among the correspondence received for the February 4 City Council meeting was a lengthy comment letter from Adams Broadwell, on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (EBRRD). As noted in the letter, EBRRD is a group representing several labor organizations with members living and working in Alameda County. The letter requests the City Council provide direction to staff to prepare a revised and recirculated Draft EIR for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects to address both projects and goes on to provide various arguments in support of this position.

At th
is time, the developer is seeking approvals from Alameda County, and the County is therefore conducting the environmental review of the project. If the City Council chooses to pursue annexation and approvals of the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, the City will conduct its own independent environmental review to support such future approvals.

Draf
t Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Arroyo Lago
As described in the February 18 Agenda Report (page 2), Alameda County published a Draft EIR for the Arroyo Lago project on September 9, 2024. The Draft EIR can be viewed at the following link: www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/Arroyo- Lago/58240001-County-of-Alameda-Arroyo-Lago-Residential-Project-EIR.pdf.

The Ci
ty and other agencies, including Zone 7 and DSRSD, submitted comments on the DEIR; Zone 7’s and DSRSD’s comments were shared with the City by those agencies, and are included as attachments to this memorandum. The County is in the process of developing the Final EIR for the Arroyo Lago project, which will include all comments received and responses to them.

DEI
R Information on Soils Contamination

2 of 2
The DEIR published by Alameda County includes an evaluation of on-site soils contamination and similar hazards in Chapter 3.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials (see above link, starting on PDF page 399 of 696). The chapter notes that the site is located on the former Hanson Aggregates Radum facility which operated between 1938 and 2001, and is identified on the Cortese list, a list of known hazardous materials or hazardous waste sites due to the past mining operations. The former mining site is part of a long-term closure and reclamation plan, overseen by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH). Due to the project’s inclusion on the Cortese list, two Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (Phase 1 ESA) have been prepared for the site, for the parcels including that proposed for residential development and the off-site utilities (DEIR, Appendix F).

Acc
ording to the DEIR, while the ESAs noted four nearby sites with the potential to impact the project site, none were identified as presenting a potential concern. Two Areas of Concern (AOC 6 and 7) were identified as part of Alameda County’s research and investigations with respect to closure of the Hanson facility, also discussed in the ESAs. It was concluded through various analyses conducted as part of the review, including soils sampling and evaluation of potential soils vapor migration risk, that neither posed a potential risk to human health or the environment. Separately, the DEIR notes that evaluations conducted by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) in conjunction with closure and reclamation of the site concluded that no threat of contamination from AOC 6 or 7 was imminent and no further cleanup was required.

ACDEH provided clearance of the proposed project contingent on completion of certain actions; some of those actions have been completed, and remaining actions are noted as required project conditions of approval in the DEIR (HAZ COA-4a through HAZ COA-4e).

The DEIR concludes that the potential impacts from soils contamination would be less than significant.

Attac
hments:

DEI
R Comment Letters
• Zone 7
• DSRSD
November 8, 2024
Aub
rey Rose, AICP, Planner III
Alameda County Community Development Agency Planning Department 224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111
Hayward, CA 94544
Sent
by email: [email protected]
Re:

Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Ple
ase see attached letter from Rebecca Smith at Downey Brand LLP representing Zone 7 Water Agency.

If yo
u have any questions, please contact me at (925) 454-5005 or via email at [email protected].

Since
rely,
Elk
e Rank,
Senior Water Resources Planner
cc: Ken Minn, file
Att
achments (1)
Supplemental Memo Attachment

Rebecca R.A. Smith
[email protected]
916.520.5281 Direct
916.520.5681 Fax
Downey Brand LLP
621 Capitol Mall, 18 th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.444.1000 Main
downeybrand.com

November 8, 2024

VIA E-MAIL

Aubrey Rose
AICP, Planner III
Alameda County Community Development
Agency Planning Department
224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111
Hayward, CA 94544
[email protected]

Re: Comments on the Draft Environment Impact (EIR) for the Arroyo Lago Residential Project

Dear Mr. Rose:

Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7, or Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) is deeply committed to its mission to deliver safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable water and flood protection services within the Livermore-Amador Valley. Consistent with that mission, Zone 7 appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on the 2024 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Lago Residential Project (Project).

Zone 7 has submitted numerous comment letters regarding prior iterations of the Project; each of these comment letters are incorporated here by reference. Unfortunately, Zone 7’s key concerns surrounding the sufficiency of the EIR’s water quality analysis and the reasonably foreseeable water quality impacts that may result from the Project have not been addressed.

Unfortunately, the DEIR does not adequately analyze the Project’s water quality impacts, not does it offer any assurances that the Project would be in compliance with the water quality criteria of the Alternative GSP. Zone 7 urges the County to complete a more robust analysis, specifically responsive to these concerns, and to plan for appropriate mitigation of the Project’s potential impacts.

The DEIR’s Water Quality analysis is insufficient to enable the public to understand and meaningfully consider the impacts of the Project.

The Project is located adjacent to the Chain of Lakes (COLs)—a centerpiece of Zone 7’s water management portfolio—and is situated immediately south of Lake I. Pursuant to reclamation plans for each of the active gravel quarry operations in the Chain of Lakes, each lake is turned over to Zone 7 on the completion of mining activities. As those sites are reclaimed, the resulting

Aubrey Rose
November 8, 2024

Page 2 ends

lakes will be interconnected by a series of conduits and used by Zone 7 for local water management functions, thereby enhancing the resiliency and flexibility of Zone 7’s water supply functions. Zone 7 currently owns Lake I and Cope Lake and expects Lake H to be transferred to Zone 7 within the next few years.

Maintaining the integrity of the quarry lakes and the quality of the underlying groundwater basin is of utmost priority to Zone 7’s water management mission. Currently, groundwater recharge occurs through infiltration of both rainfall and releases of imported water made to Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo del Valle. As surface water in these channels reaches the central part of the Livermore-Amador Valley (including the mining areas), it infiltrates into the main groundwater basin and boosts local groundwater supply. These influxes of recharge support salt management in the basin, complementing the agency’s on-going efforts to put both surface water and groundwater to maximum beneficial uses within the County. As further lakes are added to the chain, COL will provide additional capacity and flexibility for flood control and groundwater recharge, including more ability for managing water quality. Lake I, in particular, will play a critical role in enhanced groundwater recharge due to its size, location, and recharge face on the western sidewall.

Currently Zone 7 is evaluating a Chain of Lakes Conveyance Project to include a multi-use pipeline that will connect the northern COLs area (e.g., Lake I) with Lake A and the South Bay Aqueduct and with Zone 7’s water treatment plant. The concept of the pipeline is to convey excess surface water supply—including imported water and local water from the Arroyo Valle— to the COLs for storage and groundwater recharge. The pipeline will also supply raw water from the COLs to Zone 7’s Del Valle Water Treatment Plant (WTP) for use under emergency and drought situations. A pipeline alignment study has been completed and Zone 7 is further evaluating operational schemes and pertinent details. However, the proposed Project may jeopardize this crucial infrastructure project if sewage or effluent are allowed to directly or indirectly enter the lakes through runoff or infiltration.

Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Management in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin
Zone 7 relies on imported water for approximately 70% of its drinking water supply, and so the groundwater basin is an important backstop to providing water supply in times of drought, or in the event that any portion of the state’s water infrastructure should fail (for example, in the event of natural disaster). Zone 7 strives to maintain the groundwater basin at full capacity whenever possible to ensure that this locally stored water supply is available to meet the needs of County residents.

As the exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, Zone 7 prepared and implements a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) for the Basin pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Through the GSP, Zone 7 has identified thresholds within which the Basin can be operated without resulting in an impermissible “undesirable result” under SGMA.

Significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality is an undesirable result under State law, and Zone 7 is tasked with managing the basin to avoid such an outcome. Consistent with

Aubrey Rose
November 8, 2024

Page 3 ends

this sustainability goal and its long-term sustainable management of the Basin, Zone 7 has developed a series of policies, ordinances, and basin management objectives (BMOs) that together comprise a groundwater management program for the Basin. The objectives of this program are to provide for the control and conservation of waters for beneficial future uses; to promote the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water; to facilitate the importation of additional surface water to meet Basin needs; and to use the groundwater basin to store imported surface water for subsequent recovery during drought periods.

Zone 7 has set Basin Management Objectives for groundwater quality monitoring and management, including tracking and addressing any water quality degradation. These BMOs include parameters to:
• Protect and enhance the quality of the groundwater,
• Halt degradation from salt buildup (offset current and future salt loading), • Reduce flow of poor-quality shallow groundwater into deep aquifers, • Offset impacts of water recycling and wastewater disposal through integrated Salt Management Plan (SMP),
• Recharge with relatively low total dissolved solids (TDS)/hardness imported or storm/local surface water,
• Manage quality on a regional basis as measured at municipal wells (such as those operated by both the retail water agencies and Zone 7); • Minimize threats of groundwater pollution through groundwater protection.

The sustainable management criteria in that GSP, including criteria for water quality, are essential to ensuring the long-term sustainable management of the groundwater basin, for the benefit of all users in the County. The DEIR does not meaningfully engage with the standards set by the GSP, nor does it analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts to water quality that may occur as a result of the Project’s implementation.

Zone 7 manages and treats groundwater to meet current and established pending future regulatory requirements for drinking water supply and plans to be in compliance with future water quality standards. To assist Zone 7 in meeting this duty effectively, it is important that proposed projects accurately disclose and evaluate that project’s impact on the BMOs, and identify effective mitigation strategies where the Project’s may result in exceedances of the GSP sustainability criteria. Because the DEIR does not engage in this analysis, it fails to adequately inform the public about the potential impacts of the Project, and risks advancing a project for approval that may impose unanticipated impacts and costs on the Basin.

The DEIR does not include sufficient analysis to determine whether the Project will comply with the water quality standards in the GSP.

The DEIR concludes that the Project “would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality,” and that therefore any impacts to water quality are not significant. (Impact HYD-1). As to groundwater, the DEIR provides a circular reasoning for this conclusion:

Aubrey Rose
November 8, 2024

Page 4 ends

The proposed project is located within the basin area under sustainable groundwater management by Zone 7 as per the Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Thus, the proposed project would meet all applicable sustainable groundwater management actions as required. Implementation of these management impacts would ensure that groundwater quality is not impacted. (DEIR. 3.9-2.5; 3.9-2.7) This conclusion mistakes the purpose and function of the Alternative GSP. The Alternative GSP is not intended to mitigate in advance for whatever unanalyzed impact the Project may impose.

Rather, sets specific regulatory thresholds for key sustainability criteria, the exceedance of which triggers intervention under SGMA.

As to PFAs, the DEIR asserts that the Project will not pose a significant impact because to the extent new PFAs standards are adopted, they would be addressed “through the standing permitting and oversight processes.” This, too, mistakes the position that the Project is currently in: to the extent the Project imposes new costs and impacts on the Basin, it is the responsibility of the Project to address and mitigate for those costs.

The onus is on the County, and not Zone 7, to demonstrate that the proposed Project will be in compliance with the water quality standards and thresholds set by the Alternative GSP, and will not substantially degrade groundwater quality. The DEIR does not meaningfully engage with these standards, and in the absence of that analysis cannot support its conclusion that the Project would not result in a violation of water quality standards or a substantial degradation of water quality.

Zone 7 has specific and reasonable concerns about the Project’s ability to comply with these standards. For example:
• The Project proposes an onsite wastewater treatment plant that would treat wastewater and then spray the effluent in an adjacent property. The onsite wastewater treatment plant is located adjacent to Lake I which is a groundwater recharge lake and could potentially be a source of surface water for drinking water in the future. The plan does not address how the solid waste will be handled from the treatment process, nor does it address the impacts of any overflows of the system adjacent to a drinking water lake.

• The Project proposes spreading treated wastewater effluent in spray fields adjacent to Cope Lake. This area is at a lower elevation than the surrounding area and could be within the boundary of Cope Lake at higher water surface elevations or in flood conditions. The Water Board is currently looking at PFAS concentrations in wastewater effluent. Current wastewater treatment processes do not appear to remove PFAS and might actually increase concentrations. Treated wastewater effluent is also known to have elevated concentrations of nitrates and TDS both of which are monitored by Zone 7 under the Alternative GSP. Introduction of any of these compounds into the surface water of Cope Lake or infiltration into groundwater would be degradation of water quality.

Aubrey Rose
November 8, 2024

Page 5 ends

• The project has stormwater being directed to a bioretention basin within the lower elevation portion adjacent to Cope Lake. Stormwater from the development is at risk of containing PFAS, pesticides, nitrates, TPH, among other contaminants. Engineered bioretention basins are not currently designed to remove PFAS. In addition, bioretention basins require continued maintenance and are not a one-time solution. The plan does not address the ongoing maintenance needs for standard treatment and does not address PFAS
It is essential to ensure that the project will not degrade water quality in both surface water and groundwater through runoff or infiltration. Significant project concerns requiring improved evaluation and possibly mitigation measures in the DEIR include:
• Risk of upset / impacts of an upset at the sewer plant • Introduction of PFAS, heavy metals, nitrates, and other contaminants to Cope Lake, Lake I, and the groundwater basin
• Solids handling
• Stormwater entering Cope Lake
• Downstream surface water quality concerns such as PFAS or others • Spray fields leaching into the groundwater basin
• Vector control issues with respect to the spray fields • Public health and safety in and around the development It is imperative that the basin groundwater quality is protected and managed to prevent any further degradation.

The DEIR must adequately evaluate the project’s potential water quality impacts to Cope Lake and to Lake I, as well as to nearby surface waters. This includes impacts from operations of the proposed sewer treatment plant – including contribution of PFAS to the groundwater basin via wastewater effluent; the bioretention areas; and overspray or leaching of contaminated water from the irrigation spray fields.

The DEIR does not adequately address public health, safety, and ongoing operational concerns at Lake I.

Beyond these water quality concerns, Zone 7 has specific reservations regarding the DEIR’s analysis of physical conditions and the Project’s impact at Lake I and Cope Lake.

Both Lake I and Cope Lake are closed to the public and there are no current plans to make these lakes accessible for recreation or other access. Notwithstanding that fact, Zone 7 routinely patrols the area and it is not unusual to find individuals (trespassers) fishing at Lake I in particular. The slopes are steep and, in some cases, have uneven terrain not suitable for access without proper safety equipment. In addition, the water in the lakes can be deep and poses a hazard to trespassers if they accidentally fall in. With increased development in the region, the opportunity for further trespassing may increase.

Aubrey Rose
November 8, 2024

Page 6 ends

The project will have public health and safety impacts that must be addressed due to potential for contact with harmful contaminants, air quality degradation, and nuisance odors. The DEIR should address the potential for future local residents and visitors to come into contact with potentially harmful waters and air quality such as overspray from the spray fields and emissions or odors from the treatment plant. Management and operation of the sewer plant and spray fields on an ongoing basis is not clearly defined and raises concerns on the safety of residents and neighbors.

Zone 7 urges the County to carefully consider the concerns raised here. Approval of this project as proposed in the DEIR, without consideration of the issues raised here, risks setting a standard within the Basin that would disregard the important protections of the GSP and Zone 7’s existing groundwater management programs, deferring to future stakeholders the costs of mitigating those unanalyzed impacts on the basin and water supply.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

DOWNEY BRAND LLP
Rebecca R.A. Smith
RAS:dr
4508969.1

Nov
ember 8, 2024
Aubrey Rose,
AICP, Planner III
Alameda County Community Development Agency Planning
Department
224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111
Hayward, CA 94544
Email: [email protected]
Sub
ject: DSRSD Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Dear Ms. Rose:

The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Arroyo Lago Residential Project. DSRSD distributes drinking water and recycled water to the City of Dublin and Dougherty Valley portion of the City of San Ramon, provides wastewater collection and treatment for the City of Dublin and southern portion of the City of San Ramon and, by contract, treats wastewater from the City of Pleasanton. DSRSD is also a member of the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), which discharges treated wastewater from the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD into San Francisco Bay. By contract, DSRSD is also responsible for the operation and maintenance of the LAVWMA facilities.

DSRSD has the following comment:
• As described in Chapter 2.2.2 of the DEIR, the Project proposes to construct storage ponds and irrigate approximately 8.5 acres of agricultural fields with tertiary treated recycled water produced by the development. The DEIR does not address the sizing of storage ponds that would be needed during wet weather season when there would be minimal irrigation demands.

Additional details should be provided to address how the Project plans to address the disposal of tertiary treated recycled water during the wet weather season to minimize potential runoff. • The DEIR proposes to construct a package wastewater treatment plant to process and treat wastewater generated by the development. The DEIR should address and analyze the environmental impacts related to the disposal of biosolids waste from the proposed wastewater treatment facility, including whether biosolids will be handled onsite or off hauled for land disposal.

Supplemental Memo Attachment
November 8, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

• Under the Agreement for Wastewater Disposal Services dated November 3, 1992, DSRSD provides wastewater treatment services to the City of Pleasanton. DSRSD understands that the City of Pleasanton may be conducting separate studies and analysis regarding the Arroyo Lago development that could involve evaluating potential annexation of the project to the City. Per the 1992 agreement, any future plans for either a temporary emergency or future connection to the City of Pleasanton’s wastewater collection system would require coordination and review with DSRSD.

In addition, any connection to the City of Pleasanton collection system would require use of the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency system for disposal of the treated wastewater. The Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Livermore- Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) dated September 10th, 1997, requires unanimous approval of the LAVWMA Board for a member agency to provide wastewater service to unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Therefore, an Out of Service agreement with the City of Pleasanton to serve the Arroyo Lago project would also be subject to review and approval by the LAVWMA Board since the proposed development is currently located in unincorporated Alameda County.
• The Wastewater Balance Technical Memorandum prepared by EKI Environmental & Water, Inc. (Appendix K) was not included in the DEIR that was released for public review. During this review period, DSRSD requested the missing Appendix K and was provided with a modified Appendix J that was not available for public review. For a fully comprehensive review the modified Appendix J should be available for public review and comment.

DSRSD looks forward to reviewing th e final EIR for the Project. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Jaclyn Yee at (925) 875-2258.

Sincerely,

Jaclyn Yee
Senior Engineer

cc: Jan Lee, DSRSD General Manager
Steve Delight, DSRSD Engineering Services Director
Elke Rank, Zone 7 Water Agency
Colleen Winey, Zone 7 Water Agency
Michael Stella, City of Pleasanton
Michelle Walden, Alameda County Water District

MEMORANDUM

Date: February 14, 2025

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager

Mike Tassano, Deputy Director of Community Development, Transportation

Subject:

February 18, 2025, City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9: Update on Residential Development Proposals on Two Properties in East Pleasanton - El Charro Extension Study

This memorandum transmits the attached El Charro Extension Study, which provides an evaluation of East Pleasanton development on future traffic conditions, focused particularly on the extension of El Charro Road south from Stoneridge Drive to either Busch Avenue or Stanley Boulevard.

With the potential advancement of development projects in East Pleasanton, the City requested Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants prepare the attached traffic study to evaluate the effects of future development in East Pleasanton and the need, timing and design for the extension of El Charro Road.

El Charro Road is included in the General Plan, which envisioned the extension to be constructed between 2011 and 2015 (as part of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan construction). The City’s traffic model assumes the El Charro extension is in place at buildout.
1 The goal of the traffic study is to 1) determine the need for El Charro Road extension. 2) Determine when, based on development construction, the extension is needed. 3) Determine if a two-lane or four-lane El Charro Road is needed and 4) Determine if only a partial construction of El Charro Road (North section only from Stoneridge Drive to Busch Road) is sufficient, versus extension south to Stanley Boulevard.

1 “Buildout” is the planning term used to describe the hypothetical point at which the assumed feasible amount of development contemplated in the General Plan has been built, and with it all components of the General Plan’s presumed future roadway network.

2 of 2
To accomplish these goals, the City’s traffic model was used to model traffic generation associated with different development scenarios, based on the projects’ anticipated construction timelines.

The Study first establishes a baseline level of service at key intersections, then adds the projects individually, and for each successive project evaluates its impact on the circulation network.

The projects were assumed to develop in the following sequence and per the following project profiles:

1. Kiewit - 310 single family homes (SFH), 102 multifamily homes (MFH), 57 ADU’s

2. Arroyo Lago - 194 SFH, 49 ADU’s

3. East Lakes - 357 age-restricted SFH, 88 assisted and independent MFH

4. Amazon - 650,000 square foot distribution center

The Study evaluates traffic volumes on key roadway segments, and intersection level of service (LOS) at 16 intersections with and without El Charro; it also provides analysis of future travel patterns to determine the effect of the extension on cut-through traffic.

Broadly, the study concludes that El Charro is needed as a four-lane roadway from Stoneridge Drive to El Charro Road, and the extension is needed at or near the completion of the first project (Kiewit). Additional development would further contribute to the need for the extension. The modeling further concludes that the extension would not substantially change the overall volume of cut-through traffic, but would benefit Santa Rita Road, the most heavily used cut-through route, by shifting traffic to the new El Charro.

As described in the February 18, 2025, City Council Agenda Report, since the East Lakes project was submitted to Alameda County, new alternatives have been formulated that include more units and a mix of non-age-restricted and senior housing.

The modeling for the Traffic Study was well underway at the time these alternatives were proposed, and so they are not reflected in the attached study.

In staff’s initial review, the proposed alternatives would increase the project’s trip generation but would not change the overall conclusions of the study as outlined above.

Attachments:

1. El Charro Road Extension Assessment (Fehr & Peers) with Exhibits

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Final Memorandum
Date: February 12, 2025
To: Mike Tassano, City of Pleasanton
From: Bill Burton and Bruno Lertora, Fehr & Peers
Subject: El Charro Road Extension Assessment
WC22-3932
Executive Summary
This memorandum summarizes the results of the transportation assessment prepared for the El Charro Road extension project. The El Charro Road extension project would connect Stoneridge Drive and Stanley Boulevard with a four-lane divided roadway. The project would also extend Busch Road east to this new roadway, collectively providing a new north-south alternative through the City of Pleasanton. Fehr & Peers conducted a travel patterns assessment of the proposed extension by utilizing multiple data sources including existing counts, StreetLight data, and local and regional travel demand models to analyze the impacts of the extension.

The results of this assessment indicate the transportation effects of the proposed El Charro Road extension in terms of traffic volume (diversion), intersection level of service (LOS) at key locations, and travel times on key links are generally positive, as the extension benefits other competing north-south roadways, such as Santa Rita Road, by re-routing traffic from them.

Some roadways, such as Bernal Avenue and Stanley Boulevard, may experience increased traffic with the proposed extension. The El Charro Road extension would lead to an increase in average delay at the intersection of El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive, but traffic operations at this intersection would remain at an acceptable level of service. Part of this impact can be explained by cut-through traffic from I-680 and I-580 as well as induced regional demand using the new roadway extension. Approximately 150 to 200 vehicles would be regional cut-through traffic without a local origin or destination in the peak direction on the extension. This amount of cut- through traffic is smaller than the current cut-through traffic using Santa Rita Road during the AM and PM peak hours, which is estimated at 200 to 350 vehicles in the corresponding peak direction. Approximately 50% of the cut-through traffic on El Charro Road would come from existing cut-through traffic on Santa Rita Road.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 2 of 37 ends

A traffic operations sensitivity assessment was conducted to evaluate the effects of four land use development projects proposed in the study area and currently under consideration by the city.

This assessment found that the developments with the largest potential impact on the study intersections traffic operations are the “Kiewit” and “Senior Residential” projects. The impact of these developments on average intersection delay is about double the other two land use developments (Arroyo Lago and Amazon).

The analysis of the effects of a partial extension of El Charro Road between Stoneridge Drive and Busch Road found smaller benefits than a full extension, resulting in about half of the average delay reduction. Under this scenario, no new intersections would operate under unacceptable conditions, but the extension would increase traffic along Busch Road, making traffic operations along that segment approach unacceptable levels of service.

Finally, an extension of El Charro Road as only a two-lane roadway would also result in about half of the average delay reduction compared to the four-lane extension, with intersections such as El Charro Road at Stanley Boulevard and El Charro Road at Stoneridge Boulevard reaching unacceptable LOS conditions and resulting in major travel time delays along El Charro Road compared to the four-lane roadway alternative.

Findings
The main findings of this assessment are as follows:
• Is the El Charro Road Extension needed? – The analysis finds that the extension of El Charro Road offers significant benefits to parallel infrastructure facilities, particularly Santa Rita Road, and is needed to support future development in east Pleasanton. • When is the El Charro Road Extension needed? – The study’s sensitivity analysis suggests the extension is desirable in the near-term with the development of all approved projects and the planned Kiewit development. Violations of the city’s LOS policies at critical intersections, including Valley Avenue and Santa Rita Road, would occur without the extension.
• Should the El Charro Road Extension have its southern terminus at Busch Road or Stanley Boulevard? – It is recommended that the facility’s southern terminus occur at Stanley Boulevard. Terminating the facility at Busch Road would provide substantially fewer transportation benefits.
• Should the El Charro Road Extension be a four-lane or two-lane roadway? – The study’s travel demand forecasts show that the extension should be implemented as a four-lane facility. A two-lane roadway would result in additional violations of the city’s LOS policies, serve lower volumes of traffic, and provide smaller transportation benefits.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 3 of 37 ends

Introduction
This memorandum summarizes the results of the travel patterns assessment completed by Fehr & Peers for the El Charro Road extension project. El Charro Road’s current terminus is at Stoneridge Drive/West Jack London Boulevard and the project would extend the road south, connecting to Stanley Boulevard in the City of Pleasanton. This project is included in the 2005 Pleasanton General Plan Update, the City’s Traffic Impact Fee program, and is part of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. According to the General Plan, the extension is proposed to provide congestion relief for Pleasanton trips and to better connect East Pleasanton, but its construction must consider the possibility that some people may use it to cut through the City given the existing freeway congestion during the AM and PM peak periods. The analysis considers the transportation effects of the potential extension by reviewing traffic volumes, travel times, level of service, and other key traffic indicators. The assessment utilizes multiple data sources such as existing counts, StreetLight data, and information from two travel demand models (City of Pleasanton Model and Alameda CTC Model) to analyze the impacts of the extension.

The project consists of the following roadway modifications:
• El Charro Road extension and widening to two lanes per direction. • Busch Road extension to El Charro Road and widening to two lanes per direction.

Existing Travel Patterns Assessment
To better understand who might use the El Charro Road extension, and which existing roadways would benefit from the redistribution of traffic, StreetLight “Big Data” was used to perform origin- destination (OD) analyses for the following routes:
• Santa Rita Road between Valley Avenue and Stoneridge Drive • I-680 between Bernal Avenue and Stoneridge Drive
• Isabel Avenue (SR 84) between Stanley Boulevard and Jack London Boulevard For this analysis, 13 zones were established to represent potential origin and destination trips that might use the routes outlined above, and potentially the El Charro Road extension. These zones were then used to examine the top origins and destinations of travelers on those roadways for each of the study routes, and if they could benefit by re-routing their trips through the proposed extension. For example, in the case of Santa Rita Road users, trip origins in the downtown Pleasanton area (Zone 6) that travel eastbound on I-580 to Zone 1 or Zone 12 would benefit from the extension, given that the new route is more direct.

Figure 1 shows the OD zones used in the analysis. Table 1 presents the proportion of trips from each study route by direction and peak hour that could benefit from the El Charro Road extension Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 4 of 37 ends

and potentially re-route their trips to this new roadway. The results show that between 20% and 30% of trips on the main north-south routes in the study area could benefit from re-routing to the new extension. In particular, the potential impact of the extension on Santa Rita Road traffic is similar throughout directions and peak hours, except for the southbound direction during the AM peak hour, when its re-routing effect is lower. The reason is that Santa Rita Road users traveling southbound during the AM peak hour are mostly coming from zones that are northwest of the proposed extension, such as West Pleasanton, Dublin, and West Contra Costa County, and going to zones that are southwest of the extension, like Central Pleasanton and South Bay. On the other hand, trips that use Santa Rita Road in the PM peak hour or in the northbound direction generally tend to have one of their trip ends in a zone to the east of the extension and the other one west of it, making it more convenient for them to shift to El Charro Road.

Table 1: Potential Re-Routing of Trips by Route
Segment Direction Peak Hour Proportion of Trips that Could Benefit from the Extension Santa Rita Road
NB AM
PM
26%
27%
SB AM
PM
16%
23%
Interstate 680
NB AM
PM
20%
24%
SB AM
PM
19%
18%
Isabel Avenue
NB AM
PM
19%
31%
SB AM
PM
35%
21%
Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.
...\Graphics\Figures\StreetLightZones\WC22-3932.02_X_SLzones Origin-Destination Analysis Zones
Figure 1
Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 6 of 37 ends

The Bernal Avenue (between Sunol Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue) and Stanley Boulevard (between Bernal Avenue and Isabel Avenue) routes were also analyzed to understand how the redistribution of traffic might affect them. In the case of Bernal Avenue, the data suggests the extension potentially attracts traffic to this road given the top origins and destinations of trips using this route. This effect is present in both directions and peak hours, although it is more pronounced during the PM peak hour. On the other hand, the extension also potentially adds trips coming from the Livermore area to Stanley Boulevard. This happens mostly in the westbound direction during the AM peak hour, and in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour.

Another interesting Pleasanton travel pattern analysis aspect is the cut-through traffic using local streets trying to avoid the I-680/I-580 interchange during the AM and PM peak hours. Cut- through traffic is defined as traffic that passes through a city and has neither an origin nor destination inside of it. StreetLight data was used to quantify the cut-through traffic through Pleasanton given that a new north-south roadway like the proposed El Charro Road extension could also attract cut-through traffic. This analysis focused on traffic going from east to south in the AM peak hour, and from south to east in the PM peak hour.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the existing freeway traffic cutting through Pleasanton as a proportion of the vehicles traveling from I-580 at Isabel Avenue to I-680 at Sunol Boulevard, and vice versa, respectively. These proportions show that around 30% of vehicles going from I-580 at Isabel Avenue to I-680 at Sunol Boulevard during the AM peak hour cut through Pleasanton using local roads. During the PM peak hour, the proportion of traffic cutting through local roads in the reverse direction is 15%. Furthermore, the cut-through traffic represents between 10% and 15% of the total traffic on Sunol Boulevard. Since cut-through traffic exists on Pleasanton roadways today, it is expected that some of the traffic on El Charro Road will be cut-through traffic in the future.

The Alameda CTC travel demand model projects that around 15% of the El Charro Road traffic would be regional traffic, meaning that at least one of the ends of those trips would be outside of Pleasanton or its adjacent cities (Dublin and Livermore). A portion of this traffic would be expected to be cut-through traffic.

AM Peak Hour Cut-through Traffic
Figure 2
AM Peak Hour
Figure 2
PM Peak Hour
Figure 3
PM Peak Hour
Figure 4
* The Santa Rita Road route shown is used as an example of cut-through traffic through Pleasanton, and does not represent all of the cut-through traffic.

AM Peak Hour
Figure 1
AM Peak Hour
Figure 2
PM Peak Hour Cut-through Traffic
Figure 3
PM Peak Hour
Figure 4
* The Santa Rita Road route shown is used as an example of cut-through traffic through Pleasanton, and does not represent all of the cut-through traffic.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 9 of 37 ends

Circulation Analysis
The primary tool to assess the effects of the potential extension on the circulation system is the City of Pleasanton Model. This travel demand model was used to understand how traffic would be re-routed with the extension and how much traffic El Charro Road relieves from competing routes, as well as other local or regional travel behavior shifts caused by the extension. The following two scenarios were analyzed:
• Approved (Near-term) No Extension Conditions – Existing land use and roadway system configuration, plus traffic estimates for approved and pending developments and/or traffic increases due to regional growth and transportation system improvements anticipated to be completed, without the extension. Traffic volumes for this scenario were forecast using the City of Pleasanton’s travel demand model. • Approved (Near-term) Plus Extension Conditions – Existing land use and roadway system configuration, plus traffic estimates for approved and pending developments and/or traffic increases due to regional growth and transportation system improvements anticipated to be completed, plus the extension. Traffic volumes for this scenario were forecast using the City of Pleasanton’s travel demand model.

Due to the project’s potential to alter regional travel through and around Pleasanton, the Alameda CTC Model was consulted to compare and verify the parameters and results of the model. A land use comparison by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) between both models was performed and revealed that both models assume similar land use characteristics and magnitudes in TAZs around the study area; and in those TAZs where there are differences, the City of Pleasanton Model more accurately captures the existing conditions as well as planned and approved projects.

When comparing the general results across both models, the City of Pleasanton Model showed more accurate and granular results at a local level, showing how the extension could shift existing traffic from competing routes, while the Alameda CTC model presented better results at a regional level, helping understand the regional and cut-through traffic present in the study area, which helped confirm the existing cut-through assessment results presented above.

Because the City of Pleasanton Model seems to compare and validate well against existing counts, StreetLight data, and the Alameda CTC Model, no model refinements were needed, and these results were used as-is to analyze traffic operations under the four study scenarios described above and assess the potential impacts of the extension. The travel effects of the proposed extension were calculated and measured using the following metrics: traffic volume (diversion), intersection LOS at key locations, and travel times on key links.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 10 of 37 ends

Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes (weekday AM and PM peak hours) were analyzed on ten key links for approved conditions. The analysis quantifies the volume of traffic diverted from the existing circulation network to El Charro Road. The following eight segments were studied:
• El Charro Road north of Stanley Boulevard
• Santa Rita Road, north of Valley Avenue
• Isabel Avenue (SR 84), north of Stanley Boulevard
• Stanley Boulevard, east of Valley Avenue
• Bernal Avenue, north of Vineyard Avenue
• Stoneridge Drive, east of Santa Rita Road
• Valley Avenue, north of Stanley Boulevard
• First Street, north of Bernal Avenue
The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5 and show that Santa Rita Road gains around 10% additional capacity per direction during the approved year because of the extension. Although, in line with what the existing travel patterns assessment showed, the effect of the extension on Santa Rita Road traffic is lower (less traffic is diverted from Santa Rita Road) in the southbound direction during the AM peak hour. Other roads such as Valley Avenue and Stoneridge Drive also show reduced volumes with the proposed extension. Bernal Avenue and Stanley Boulevard serve as feeders for the El Charro Road extension, and their volumes increase with the extension. Finally, not all the El Charro Road volume increase can be explained by decreases on competing routes, which suggests there is some level of cut-through traffic from I-680 and I-580 as well as induced regional demand.

Approved Plus Extension AM
Figure 4
Approved Plus Extension PM
Figure X
Buildout Plus Extension AM
Figure X
Buildout Plus Extension PM
Figure X
Arroyo de la Laguna
Arroyo Valle
Arroyo Mocho
Airport
Municipal
Livermore
East
Pleasanton

D U B L I N

P L E A S A N T O N

L I V E R M O R E
Bernal Ave
Bernal Ave
Dublin Blvd Portola Ave
W Jack London Blvd
Vallecitos Rd
Stoneridge Dr
Sunol Blvd
Airway Blvd
First St
Main St
E Stanley BlvdValley Ave
Valley Ave
Hopyard Rd
Vineyard Ave
Vineyard Ave
Foothill Rd
Holmes St
Owens Dr
Stanley Blvd
Johnson Dr
Murrieta Blvd
Isabel Ave
Concannon Blvd
Santa Rita Rd
Vineyard Ave
Del Valle Pkwy
W Las Positas Blvd
El Charro Rd
Busch Rd
680
680
580
580
84 84
Traﬃc Reduction Traﬃc Increase Negligible Traﬃc Impact
Approved Plus Extension AM
Figure X
Approved Plus Extension PM
Figure 5
Buildout Plus Extension AM
Figure X
Buildout Plus Extension PM
Figure X
Arroyo de la Laguna
Arroyo Valle
Arroyo Mocho
Airport
Municipal
Livermore
East
Pleasanton

D U B L I N

P L E A S A N T O N

Page 13 of 37 ends

Intersection LOS – Key Locations
Intersections are generally the critical capacity-controlling elements of suburban roadway networks. Therefore, the operations of critical intersections surrounding the study area are used as indicators of the adequacy of the vehicular circulation system. The following intersections, also shown on Figure 6, were selected to analyze the potential effects of the El Charro Road extension during the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and weekday evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods.

1. Santa Rita Road at W Las Positas Boulevard

2. Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge Drive

3. Santa Rita Road at Valley Avenue

4. Main Street at Stanley Boulevard

5. First Street at Vineyard Avenue

6. First Street/Sunol Boulevard at Bernal Avenue

7. Bernal Avenue at Vineyard Avenue

8. Bernal Avenue/Valley Avenue at Stanley Boulevard

9. El Charro Road at Stanley Boulevard

10. El Charro Road at Stoneridge Drive

11. Isabel Avenue at Stanley Boulevard

12. Busch Road at Valley Avenue

13. Santa Rita Road at I-580 westbound ramps

14. Santa Rita Road at I-580 eastbound ramps/Pimlico Drive

15. Sunol Boulevard at I-680 northbound ramps

16. Sunol Boulevard at I-680 southbound ramps
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term “level of service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow from a vehicle driver’s perspective based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined, ranging from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (over-capacity conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations “at capacity.” When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated LOS F.

Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using methods developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), as documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2000 Edition, for vehicles. The HCM method calculates control delay at an intersection based on inputs such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, signal phasing and timing, pedestrian crossing times, and peak hour factors. Control delay is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The relationship between LOS and control delay is summarized in Table 2.

Arroyo de la Laguna
Arroyo Valle
Arroyo Mocho
Airport
Municipal
Livermore
East
Pleasanton

D U B L I N

P L E A S A N T O N

L I V E R M O R E
Bernal Ave
Bernal Ave
Dublin Blvd Portola Ave
W Jack London Blvd
Vallecitos Rd
Stoneridge Dr
Sunol Blvd
Airway Blvd
First St
Main St
E Stanley BlvdValley Ave
Valley Ave
Hopyard Rd
Vineyard Ave
Vineyard Ave
Foothill Rd
Holmes St
Owens Dr
Stanley Blvd
Johnson Dr
Murrieta Blvd
Isabel Ave
Concannon Blvd
Santa Rita Rd
Vineyard Ave
Del Valle Pkwy
W Las Positas Blvd
El Charro Rd
Busch Rd
680
680
580
580
84 84
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
Study Locations
Figure 6
Study Intersection
#
Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 15 of 37 ends

Table 2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Delay in
Seconds
A
Progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
< 10.0
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. > 10.0 to 20.0 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to 35.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 to 55.0
E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay.

These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0
F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. > 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition (Transportation Research Board).

Intersection Operations
Intersection operations for the two study scenarios were evaluated using the methods previously described. The analysis results for both scenarios are presented in Table 3 and show that the extension alleviates traffic operations along Santa Rita Road, having its greatest effect on the Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive intersection. No new intersections would operate under deficient traffic operations conditions with the extension.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 16 of 37 ends

Table 3: Study Scenarios Level of Service Summary
Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Approved No Extension Approved Plus Extension
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita Road/
W Las Positas
Boulevard
Signal AM
PM
34 C 34 C
27 C 29 C
2 Santa Rita Road/
Stoneridge Drive Signal AM
PM
57 E 58 E
42 D 30 C
3 Santa Rita Road/
Valley Avenue Signal AM
PM
54 D 41 D
58 E 54 D
4 Main Street/
Stanley Boulevard Signal AM
PM
28 C 18 B
14 B 13 B
5 First Street/ Vineyard
Avenue Signal AM
PM
32 C 33 C
33 C 32 C
6 First Street/Sunol
Boulevard/Bernal
Avenue
Signal AM
PM
38 D 39 D
33 C 36 D
7 Bernal Avenue/
Vineyard Avenue Signal AM
PM
27 C 27 C
12 B 17 B
8 Bernal Avenue/ Valley
Avenue/ Stanley
Boulevard
Signal AM
PM
47 D 44 D
34 C 36 D
9 El Charro Road/
Stanley Boulevard Signal AM
PM
- - 25 C
- - 18 B
10 El Charro Road/
Stoneridge Drive Signal AM
PM
39 D 34 C
28 C 46 D
11 Isabel Avenue/
Stanley Boulevard Signal AM
PM
24 C 27 C
31 C 32 C
12 Busch Road/ Valley
Avenue Signal AM
PM
30 C 19 B
11 B 22 C
13 Santa Rita Road/ I-
580 westbound
ramps
Signal AM
PM
9 A 7 A
9 A 10 A
14 Santa Rita Road/ I-
580 eastbound
ramps/Pimlico Drive
Signal AM
PM
24 C 24 C
53 D 51 D
Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 17 of 37 ends

Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Approved No Extension Approved Plus Extension
Delay LOS Delay LOS
15 Sunol Boulevard/ I-
680 northbound
ramps
Signal AM
PM
6 A 5 A
9 A 8 A
16 Sunol Boulevard/ I-
680 southbound
ramps
Signal AM
PM
22 C 22 C
13 B 13 B
Notes:

1. Intersection traffic control type (Signal = Signalized)

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold
Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Travel Time Assessment – Key Links/Routes
The intersection operations analysis presented above was also used to estimate travel times along several routes that may be affected by the extension. Figure 7 presents the key routes. Table 4 presents the routes that were evaluated for this analysis in the northbound and southbound directions during the weekday morning and evening peak periods. The travel times compare with and without extension scenarios. These results suggest the extension has a positive impact on reducing travel times along Main Street and Santa Rita Road, especially during the AM peak hour.

First Street is another roadway where travel times are reduced by the proposed extension, while travel times along Bernal Avenue in the northbound direction, given its traffic volume increase, are greater with the extension. There does not appear to be a substantial impact on travel times along Isabel Avenue.

Arroyo de la Laguna
Arroyo Valle
Arroyo Mocho
Airport
Municipal
Livermore
East
Pleasanton

D U B L I N

P L E A S A N T O N

L I V E R M O R E
Bernal Ave
Bernal Ave
Dublin Blvd Portola Ave
W Jack London Blvd
Vallecitos Rd
Stoneridge Dr
Sunol Blvd
Airway Blvd
First St
Main St
E Stanley BlvdValley Ave
Valley Ave
Hopyard Rd
Vineyard Ave
Vineyard Ave
Foothill Rd
Holmes St
Owens Dr
Stanley Blvd
Johnson Dr
Murrieta Blvd
Isabel Ave
Concannon Blvd
Santa Rita Rd
Vineyard Ave
Del Valle Pkwy
W Las Positas Blvd
Busch Rd
El Charro Rd
680
680
580
580
84 84
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 10
12 13
14 15
16 7
9 11
Key Routes
Figure 7
Key Route
Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 19 of 37 ends

Table 4: Key Routes Travel Times Summary
Segment Peak
Hour
Approved No
Extension (min)
Approved Plus
Extension (min)
Extension Impact on
Travel Times (min)
El Charro Road NB AM
PM
- 4.0 -
- 4.5 -
El Charro Road SB AM
PM
- 6.5 -
- 6.5 -
Main Steet/ Santa Rita
Road NB
AM
PM

13.5 11.0 -2.5 (-19%)

20.0 18.5 -1.5 (-8%)
Main Steet/ Santa Rita
Road SB
AM
PM

18.0 15.5 -2.5 (-14%)

10.0 9.0 -1.0 (-10%)
First Street/ Stanley
Boulevard NB
AM
PM

6.5 5.0 -1.5 (-23%)

6.0 5.5 -0.5 (9%)
First Street/ Stanley
Boulevard SB
AM
PM

6.0 6.5 0.5 (8%)

5.5 6.0 0.5 (9%)
Bernal Avenue NB AM
PM

8.5 8.5 0.0 (0%)

8.0 9.5 1.5 (19%)
Bernal Avenue SB AM
PM

7.5 8.5 1.0 (13%)

7.5 8.5 1.0 (13%)
Isabel Avenue NB AM
PM

3.0 3.0 0.0 (0%)

3.0 3.0 0.0 (0%)
Isabel Avenue SB AM
PM

4.0 4.0 0.0 (0%)

4.5 4.5 0.0 (0%)
Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 20 of 37 ends

Traffic Operations Sensitivity Assessment
The above analysis assesses the potential four-lane El Charro Road extension under Approved Year scenarios. Recently, four substantial development projects have been proposed in the study area and are currently under consideration by the city, referred to as Kiewit, Arroyo Lago, Senior Residential, and Amazon in this analysis. Figure 8 shows the locations and access points of the four developments. The project descriptions are as follows:
• Project #1 – Kiewit – located south of Busch Road and east of Valley Avenue ◦ 310 single family dwelling units
◦ 102 multi-family dwelling units
◦ 57 accessory dwelling units
• Project #2 – Arroyo Lago – located north of Busch Road and west of El Charro Road ◦ 194 single family dwelling units
◦ 49 accessory dwelling units
• Project #3 – Senior Residential – located north of Busch Road and west of El Charro Road ◦ 357 independent age-restricted single family dwelling units ◦ 88 assisted and independent living multi-family dwelling units ◦ 16,000 square feet of retail (grocery and drugstore)
• Project #4 – Amazon
◦ 650,000 square foot distribution center – located south of Busch Road and west of El Charro Road
Valley AveValley Ave
Valley AveValley Ave
Boulder StBoulder St
Stanley BlvdStanley Blvd
Busch RdBusch Rd
Busch RdBusch Rd
El Charro RdEl Charro Rd
Quarry LnQuarry Ln
Ironwood DrIronwood Dr
Chatham PlChatham PlBradford WayBradford Way

KIEWIT AMAZON
ARROYO
LAGO
SENIOR

HOUSING
Land Use Developments in Project Site Vicinity
Figure 8
Development Access Point
Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 22 of 37 ends

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate when the proposed extension might be needed and whether a partial or two-lane extension would be adequate depending on land use scenarios with a subset of the above projects being built. Projected traffic volumes for each scenario were developed using the City of Pleasanton travel demand model. The following scenarios were analyzed:
• Approved (Near-term) Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, without the extension.

This scenario does not include any of the four development projects under consideration (Kiewit, Arroyo Lago, Senior Residential, and Amazon).
• Approved (Near-term) Plus Extension Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, with the El Charro extension as proposed (two lanes in each direction). This scenario does not include any of the four development projects.
• Alternative 1 – Approved (Near-term) Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, without the extension. This scenario includes the first project expected to be developed (Kiewit).
• Alternative 1 – Approved (Near-term) Plus Extension Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, with the extension. This scenario includes the first project expected to be developed (Kiewit).
• Alternative 2 – Approved (Near-term) Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, without the extension. This scenario includes the first two projects expected to be developed (Kiewit and Arroyo Lago).
• Alternative 2 – Approved (Near-term) Plus Extension Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, with the extension. This scenario includes the first two projects expected to be developed (Kiewit and Arroyo Lago).
• Alternative 3 – Approved (Near-term) Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, without the extension. This scenario includes the first three projects expected to be developed (Kiewit, Arroyo Lago, and Senior Residential). • Alternative 3 – Approved (Near-term) Plus Extension Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, with the extension. This scenario includes the first three projects expected to be developed (Kiewit, Arroyo Lago, and Senior Residential). • Alternative 4 – Approved (Near-term) Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 23 of 37 ends

without the extension. This scenario includes all four development projects (Kiewit, Arroyo Lago, Senior Residential, and Amazon).
• Alternative 4 – Approved (Near-term) Plus Extension Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, with the extension. This scenario includes all four development projects (Kiewit, Arroyo Lago, Senior Residential, and Amazon).
• Alternative 5 – Approved (Near-term) Plus Extension Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, with a partial buildout of the extension. This scenario includes an extension of El Charro Road between Stoneridge Drive and Busch Road (i.e., not to Stanley Boulevard), as well as all four development projects.
• Alternative 6 – Approved (Near-term) Plus Project Conditions – Projected land use and future roadway improvements based on the City of Pleasanton Model under approved conditions, with a full El Charro Extension (Stoneridge to Stanley) with only one lane in each direction (i.e., rather than two lanes in each direction). All four development projects are included in this scenario.

The intersections assessed in the sensitivity analysis are a subset of the previously evaluated intersections and have been renumbered in this section for simplicity purposes:

1. Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge Drive

2. Santa Rita Road at Valley Avenue

3. Bernal Avenue/Valley Avenue at Stanley Boulevard

4. El Charro Road at Stanley Boulevard

5. El Charro Road at Stoneridge Boulevard

6. Busch Road at Valley Avenue

7. Busch Road at El Charro Road
Intersection operations during the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and weekday evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods and travel times along the three main routes affected by the extension were determined using estimated traffic volumes. As noted previously, all intersections in this analysis are signalized intersections, and where possible signal timings were optimized to better accommodate the estimated volumes.

For the purposes of this sensitivity assessment, scenarios that assume the El Charro Road extension also assume Busch Road is extended to El Charro Road: for these scenarios, Busch Road is assumed to be one lane in each direction.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 24 of 37 ends

Intersection Operations
Approved Conditions
These scenarios include project land use and future roadway improvements under approved conditions but do not include any of the four specific development projects under consideration.

These land use conditions have been assessed without and with the El Charro Road extension as proposed (two lanes in each direction).

Table 5 presents intersection analysis results for both scenarios.

Table 5: Approved Conditions Level of Service Summary
Intersection Peak Hour
No Extension Plus Extension
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge
Drive
AM
PM
57 E 58 E
42 D 30 C
2 Santa Rita Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
54 D 41 D
58 E 54 D
3 Bernal Avenue-Valley
Avenue/Stanley Boulevard
AM
PM
47 D 44 D
34 C 36 D
4 El Charro Road/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
- - 25 C
- - 18 B
5 El Charro Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
39 D 34 C
28 C 46 D
6 Busch Road/Valley Avenue AM
PM
30 C 19 B
11 B 22 C
7 Busch Road/El Charro Road AM
PM
- - 8 A
- - 9 A
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized.

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

These results are consistent with results shown in Table 3, and demonstrate that the extension improves intersection operations at intersection 2 (Santa Rita Road/Valley Avenue) while intersection 1 (Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive) operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour.

Approved Alternative 1 Conditions
These scenarios include projected land use and future roadway improvements under approved conditions with the addition of the first development project under consideration, Kiewit. These Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 25 of 37 ends

land use conditions have been assessed with and without the El Charro Road extension as proposed (two lanes in each direction).

Table 6 presents intersection analysis results for both scenarios.

Table 6: Approved Alternative 1 Conditions Level of Service Summary Intersection
Peak
Hour
Approved Conditions Alternative 1
No Extension Plus Extension No Extension Plus Extension Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita
Road/Stoneridge Drive
AM
PM
57 E 58 E 60 E 59 E
42 D 30 C 43 D 30 C
2 Santa Rita Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
54 D 41 D 61 E 46 D
58 E 54 D 66 E 56 E
3 Bernal Avenue-Valley
Avenue/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
47 D 44 D 48 D 44 D
34 C 36 D 34 C 40 D
4 El Charro Road/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
- - 25 C - - 28 C
- - 18 B - - 18 B
5 El Charro
Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
39 D 34 C 39 D 39 D
28 C 46 D 28 C 48 D
6 Busch Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
30 C 19 B 32 C 21 C
11 B 22 C 17 B 31 C
7 Busch Road/El Charro
Road
AM
PM
- - 8 A - - 9 A
- - 9 A - - 10 A
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized.

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Traffic associated with the Kiewit project deteriorates intersection operations at both intersection 1 (Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive) and 2 (Santa Rita Road/Valley Avenue). The extension does not improve operations to LOS D or better, but it does decrease the average delay at Santa Rita Road/Valley Avenue by 13 seconds in the AM peak hour. Overall, the inclusion of the Kiewit project increases the average delay across study intersections by approximately three seconds per intersection.

Approved Alternative 2 Conditions
These scenarios include projected land use and future roadway improvements under approved conditions with the addition of the first and second development projects under consideration, Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 26 of 37 ends

Kiewit and Arroyo Lago. These land use conditions have been assessed with and without the El Charro Road extension as proposed (two lanes in each direction).

Table 7 presents intersection analysis results for both scenarios.

Table 7: Approved Alternative 2 Conditions Level of Service Summary Intersection Peak
Hour
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
No Extension Plus Extension No Extension Plus Extension Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita
Road/Stoneridge Drive
AM
PM
60 E 59 E 60 E 61 E
43 D 30 C 43 D 30 C
2 Santa Rita Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
61 E 46 D 62 E 46 D
66 E 56 E 68 E 58 E
3 Bernal Avenue-Valley
Avenue/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
48 D 44 D 50 D 44 D
34 C 40 D 34 C 40 D
4 El Charro Road/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
- - 28 C - - 28 C
- - 18 B - - 18 B
5 El Charro
Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
39 D 39 D 43 D 39 D
28 C 48 D 31 C 49 D
6 Busch Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
32 C 21 C 35 C 21 C
17 B 31 C 18 B 36 D
7 Busch Road/El Charro
Road
AM
PM
- - 9 A - - 9 A
- - 10 A - - 10 A
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized.

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Traffic associated with the Arroyo Lago project would contribute to greater intersection delays at intersections 2 (Santa Rita Road/Valley Road), 3 (Bernal Avenue-Valley Avenue/Stanley Boulevard), 5 (El Charro Road/Stoneridge Boulevard), and 6 (Busch Road/Valley Road). The extension produces similar delay reductions to those observed under previous scenarios. Notable improvements with the El Charro Road Extension would occur at the Santa Rita Road/Valley Road intersection, which would experience decreases in vehicle delays of 10 or more second s per vehicle. On average, the inclusion of the Arroyo Lago project increases the average delay across study intersections between one and two seconds per intersection.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 27 of 37 ends

Approved Alternative 3 Conditions
These scenarios include projected land use and future roadway improvements under approved conditions with the addition of the first, second, and third development projects under consideration: Kiewit, Arroyo Lago, and Senior Residential. These land use conditions have been assessed with and without the El Charro Road extension as proposed (two lanes in each direction).

Table 8 presents intersection analysis results for both scenarios.

Table 8: Approved Alternative 3 Conditions Level of Service Summary Intersection Peak
Hour
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
No Extension Plus Extension No Extension Plus Extension Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita
Road/Stoneridge Drive
AM
PM
60 E 61 E 61 E 63 E
43 D 30 C 44 D 30 C
2 Santa Rita Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
62 E 46 D 63 E 46 D
68 E 58 E 70 E 61 E
3 Bernal Avenue-Valley
Avenue/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
50 D 44 D 52 D 44 D
34 C 40 D 34 C 40 D
4 El Charro Road/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
- - 28 C - - 30 C
- - 18 B - - 18 B
5 El Charro
Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
43 D 39 D 53 D 41 D
31 C 49 D 37 D 51 D
6 Busch Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
35 C 21 C 39 D 22 C
18 B 36 D 21 C 48 D
7 Busch Road/El Charro
Road
AM
PM
- - 9 A - - 9 A
- - 10 A - - 10 A
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized.

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Traffic associated with the Senior Residential project would contribute to greater intersection delays at all study intersections. The extension improves operations at some intersections, although intersection 1 (Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive) operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and intersection 2 at LOS E in the PM peak hour. The delay reductions observed for the Plus Extension scenario are similar to those reported for previous scenarios. Notable improvements with the El Charro Road Extension would occur at the Santa Rita Road/Valley Road intersection , Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 28 of 37 ends

which would experience decreases in vehicle delays of 10 or more seconds per vehicle. On average, the inclusion of the Senior Residential project increases the average delay across study intersections by two to three seconds per intersection.

Approved Alternative 4 Conditions
These scenarios include projected land use and future roadway improvements under approved conditions with the addition of all four development projects under consideration: Kiewit, Arroyo Lago, Senior Residential, and Amazon. These land use conditions have been assessed with and without the El Charro Road extension as proposed (two lanes in each direction).

Table 9 presents intersection analysis results for both scenarios.

Table 9: Approved Alternative 4 Conditions Level of Service Summary Intersection Peak
Hour
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
No Extension Plus Extension No Extension Plus Extension Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita
Road/Stoneridge Drive
AM
PM
61 E 63 E 61 E 63 E
44 D 30 C 44 D 31 C
2 Santa Rita Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
63 E 46 D 64 E 51 D
70 E 61 E 70 E 61 E
3 Bernal Avenue-Valley
Avenue/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
52 D 44 D 52 D 44 D
34 C 40 D 34 C 40 D
4 El Charro Road/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
- - 30 C - - 29 C
- - 18 B - - 19 B
5 El Charro
Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
53 D 41 D 53 D 41 D
37 D 51 D 50 D 53 D
6 Busch Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
39 D 22 C 39 D 22 C
21 C 48 D 21 C 49 D
7 Busch Road/El Charro
Road
AM
PM
- - 9 A - - 9 A
- - 10 A - - 10 B
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized.

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Traffic associated with the Amazon project would contribute to greater intersection delays at intersection 2 (Santa Rita Road/Valley Road), 3 (Bernal Avenue-Valley Avenue/Stanley Boulevard), and 5 (El Charro Road/Stoneridge Boulevard). The extension improves operations at some of Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 29 of 37 ends

these intersections, although intersection 1 (Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive) operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and intersection 2 at LOS E in the PM peak hour. Notable improvements with the El Charro Road Extension would occur at the Santa Rita Road/Valley Road intersection , which would experience decreases in vehicle delays of 10 or more seconds per vehicle. The extension produces similar delay reductions to those observed under previous scenarios. On average, the inclusion of the Amazon project increases the average delay across study intersections by approximately one second per intersection.

Land Use Alternatives Comparison
Table 10 below compiles the level of service results from the earlier tables for the No Extension scenarios for all land use alternatives. Table 11 compiles these results for the Plus Extension scenarios for greater ease of comparison across the alternatives.

Table 10: Land Use Alternatives No Extension Level of Service Comparison Intersection Peak
Hour
Approved
Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita
Road/Stoneridge
Drive
AM
PM
57 E 60 E 60 E 61 E 61 E
42 D 43 D 43 D 44 D 44 D
2 Santa Rita
Road/Valley Avenue
AM
PM
54 D 61 E 62 E 63 E 64 E
58 E 66 E 68 E 70 E 70 E
3 Bernal Avenue-Valley
Avenue/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
47 D 48 D 50 D 52 D 52 D
34 C 34 C 34 C 34 C 34 C
5 El Charro
Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
39 D 39 D 43 D 53 D 53 D
28 C 28 C 31 C 37 D 50 D
6 Busch Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
30 C 32 C 35 C 39 D 39 D
11 B 17 B 18 B 21 C 21 C
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized.

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold.

3. Intersections 4 and 7 are not included in this table as they result from the El Charro Road extension.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 30 of 37 ends

Table 11: Land Use Alternatives Plus Extension Level of Service Comparison Intersection Peak
Hour
Approved
Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita
Road/Stoneridge
Drive
AM
PM
58 E 59 E 61 E 63 E 63 E
30 C 30 C 30 C 30 C 31 C
2 Santa Rita
Road/Valley Avenue
AM
PM
41 D 46 D 46 D 46 D 51 D
54 D 56 E 58 E 61 E 61 E
3 Bernal Avenue-Valley
Avenue/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
44 D 44 D 44 D 44 D 44 D
36 D 40 D 40 D 40 D 40 D
4 El Charro
Road/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
25 C 28 C 28 C 30 C 29 C
18 B 18 B 18 B 18 B 19 B
5 El Charro
Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
34 C 39 D 39 D 41 D 41 D
46 D 48 D 49 D 51 D 53 D
6 Busch Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
19 B 21 C 21 C 22 C 22 C
22 C 31 C 36 D 48 D 49 D
7 Busch Road/El
Charro Road
AM
PM
8 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A
9 A 10 A 10 A 10 A 10 B
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized.

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

The results suggest that the land use developments with the greatest effect on traffic operations at the study intersections are Kiewit (Alternative 1) and Senior Residential (Alternative 3). The impact of these developments on the average delay at intersections is about double the other two land use developments (Arroyo Lago and Amazon). The benefits of the El Charro Road extension increase with the number of developments included in the analysis. Based on the operations of parallel facilities to El Charro Road, specifically Santa Rita Road at Valley Avenue, the inclusion of the first development (Kiewit) would trigger unacceptable operations for both peak hours. The remaining three developments would contribute additional traffic delay as well.

Approved Alternative 5 Conditions (Partial Extension)
These scenarios include projected land use and future roadway improvements under approved conditions with the addition of all four development projects under consideration. These land use conditions have been assessed with and without a partial El Charro Road extension between Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 31 of 37 ends

Stoneridge Drive and Busch Road. In this alternative, El Charro Road’s southern terminus would occur at Busch Road rather than Stanley Boulevard.

Table 12 presents the intersection analysis results for the partial extension Alternative 5 scenario, compared to Alternative 4 conditions.

Table 12: Approved Alternative 5 Conditions Level of Service Summary Intersection Peak
Hour
Alternative 4 Alternative 5
No Extension Plus Extension Plus Partial
Extension
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita
Road/Stoneridge Drive
AM
PM
61 E 63 E 59 E
43 D 31 C 35 C
2 Santa Rita Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
64 E 51 D 57 E
70 E 60 E 65 E
3 Bernal Avenue-Valley
Avenue/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
52 D 44 D 53 D
34 C 40 D 38 D
4 El Charro Road/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
- - 29 C - -
- - 19 B - -
5 El Charro
Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
53 D 41 D 36 D
50 D 53 D 46 D
6 Busch Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
39 D 22 C 48 D
21 C 49 D 36 D
7 Busch Road/El Charro
Road
AM
PM
- - 9 A - -
- - 10 B - -
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized.

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

When compared to the No Extension scenario, the partial extension provides some relief at intersections 1 (Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive), 2 (Santa Rita Road/Valley Road), and 5 (El Charro Road/Stoneridge Boulevard), although it does not improve operations to LOS D or better at Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive or Santa Rita Road/Valley Road. On average, the partial extension yields approximately half of the delay reductions that the full extension produces.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 32 of 37 ends

Approved Alternative 6 Conditions (Two-Lane Extension)
This scenario includes projected land use and future roadway improvements under approved conditions with the addition of all four development projects under consideration. These land use conditions have been assessed with a full El Charro Road extension between Stoneridge Drive and Busch Road consisting of only one lane in each direction (rather than two lanes in each direction).

Table 13 presents the intersection analysis results for the two-lane Alternative 6 scenario, compared to Alternative 4 and 5 conditions.

Table 13: Approved Alternative 6 Conditions Level of Service Summary Intersection Peak
Hour
Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
No Extension Plus Extension Plus Partial
Extension
Plus Two-Lane
Extension
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Santa Rita
Road/Stoneridge
Drive
AM
PM
61 E 63 E 59 E 61 E
43 D 31 C 35 C 32 C
2 Santa Rita
Road/Valley Avenue
AM
PM
64 E 51 D 57 E 55 D
70 E 60 E 65 E 64 E
3 Bernal Avenue-
Valley
Avenue/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
52 D 44 D 53 D 42 D
34 C 40 D 38 D 38 D
4 El Charro
Road/Stanley
Boulevard
AM
PM
- - 29 C - - 83 F
- - 19 B - - 30 C
5 El Charro
Road/Stoneridge
Boulevard
AM
PM
53 D 41 D 36 D 56 E
50 D 53 D 46 D 71 E
6 Busch Road/Valley
Avenue
AM
PM
39 D 22 C 48 D 23 C
21 C 49 D 36 D 33 C
7 Busch Road/El
Charro Road
AM
PM
- - 9 A - - 11 B
- - 10 B - - 25 C
Notes:

1. All intersections are signalized

2. LOS E and F are shown in bold
Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Compared to the Alternative 4 No Extension scenario, the two-lane extension improves intersection operations at intersections 1 (Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive), 2 (Santa Rita Road/Valley Road), and 6 (Busch Road/Valley Avenue). However, it does not improve operations Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 33 of 37 ends

to LOS D or better at Santa Rita Road/Stoneridge Drive or Santa Rita Road/Valley Road, and deteriorates traffic delay to LOS E or worse at the new intersection 4 (El Charro Road/Stanley Boulevard) and intersection 5 (El Charro Road/Stoneridge Boulevard). On average, the two-lane extension yields approximately half of the delay reductions that the full extension produces.

Comparing both extension alternatives, a partial extension of El Charro Road would yield smaller benefits than a full extension, resulting in about half of the average delay reduction. Under this scenario, no new intersections operate at unacceptable conditions, but the extension would have an impact on traffic along Busch Road. An extension of El Charro Road as a two-lane roadway would also result in about half of the average delay reduction compared to the four -lane extension, with intersections such as El Charro Road at Stanley Boulevard, and El Charro Road at Stoneridge Boulevard, reaching unacceptable LOS conditions. Overall, the analysis suggests a full four-lane extension of El Charro Road connecting to Stanley Boulevard is warranted.

Travel Time Assessment
The intersection operations analysis presented for the alternatives above has been used to estimate travel times along three key routes that would be affected by the extension:
• Main Street/Santa Rita Road between Bernal Avenue and Stoneridge Drive • First Street/Stanley Boulevard between Bernal Avenue and Valley Avenue • El Charro Road between Stanley Boulevard and Stoneridge Drive (only for plus extension scenarios)
The impact of each land use development (Alternatives 1 through 4) on predicted travel times is modest, which is consistent with the LOS results shown earlier. On average, the increases in delay produced by these developments are not greater than three seconds per intersection, which is not enough to substantially impact overall travel times results. For these reasons, only the travel times of Alternatives 4 through 6 are shown below.

Table 14 presents travel times summaries for the various extension alternatives. Table 15 presents the difference in travel time impacts across these alternatives. These scenarios include all four project land uses.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 34 of 37 ends

Table 14: Key Routes Travel Times Summary (Minutes) for Extension Alternatives Segment Peak
Hour
Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
No Extension Plus Extension Plus Partial
Extension
Plus Two-Lane
Extension
El Charro Road NB1 AM
PM
- 4.0 4.0 11.0
- 4.5 4.0 20.0
El Charro Road SB1 AM
PM
- 6.5 4.5 9.0
- 7.0 5.0 8.5
Main Steet/Santa Rita
Road NB
AM
PM

13.5 11.0 12.5 13.0

20.0 18.5 19.5 19.5
Main Steet/Santa Rita
Road SB
AM
PM

18.0 15.5 16.5 16.5

10.5 9.0 9.5 9.5
First Street/Stanley
Boulevard NB
AM
PM

7.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

6.0 5.5 5.5 5.5
First Street/Stanley
Boulevard SB
AM
PM

6.0 6.5 6.0 7.0

5.5 6.0 5.5 6.0
1: For Alternative 5, El Charro Road is only extended to Busch Road, so its extension is shorter than the other alternatives, hence the smaller travel times.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 35 of 37 ends

Table 15: Impact of Extension on Travel Times Compared to Alternative 4 Plus Extension (Minutes)
Segment Peak
Hour
Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Difference Percent
Difference Difference Percent
Difference
El Charro Road NB1 AM
PM
+0.0 +0% +7.0 +175%
-0.5 -11% +15.5 +344%
El Charro Road SB1 AM
PM
-2.0 -31% +2.5 +38%
-2.0 -29% +1.5 +21%
Main Steet/Santa Rita
Road NB
AM
PM
+1.5 +14% +2.0 +18%
+1.0 +5% +1.0 +5%
Main Steet/Santa Rita
Road SB
AM
PM
+1.0 +6% +1.0 +6%
+0.5 +6% +0.5 +6%
First Street/Stanley
Boulevard NB
AM
PM
+0.0 +0% +0.0 +0%
+0.0 +0% +0.0 +0%
First Street/Stanley
Boulevard SB
AM
PM
-0.5 -8% +0.5 +8%
-0.5 -8% +0.0 +0%
1: For Alternative 5, El Charro Road is only extended to Busch Road, so its extension is shorter than the other alternatives, hence the smaller travel times.

Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Comparing the effects of the El Charro Road extension on travel times, the benefits are consistent with what is shown in Table 4. The extension contributes to significant travel time savings along Main Street/Santa Rita and some reductions along First Street/Stanley Boulevard as well. The partial extension of El Charro Road shows some travel time reductions compared to the No Extension scenario, but not as much as the full extension scenario, especially along Main Street/Santa Rita. The extension of El Charro Road as a two-lane roadway would result in major travel time delays along El Charro Road compared to the rest of the scenarios. This is due to a lack of sufficient capacity in the two-lane option. This scenario also shows travel time reductions along Main Street/Santa Rita that are similar to the partial extension scenario. Table 16 shows traffic volumes along El Charro Road for the three extension configurations. A partial extension would result in a decrease in traffic volumes on El Charro Road of approximately 40% compared with the full extension scenario. The two-lane extension scenario also results in a decrease in traffic along El Charro Road of approximately 30% in the peak direction.

Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 36 of 37 ends

Table 16: El Charro Road Traffic Volumes Summary
Segment Peak
Hour
Alternative 4
(Four-Lane
Extension
Alternative 5
(Partial
Extension)
Diverted
Traffic
Alternative 6
(Two-Lane
Extension
Diverted
Traffic
El Charro Road NB AM
PM
1,400 750 -650 1,000 -400
1,000 650 -350 650 -350
El Charro Road SB AM
PM
650 450 -200 600 -50
1,350 800 -550 1,000 -350
Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2025.

Conclusions
The results of this transportation assessment indicate that the transportation effects of the proposed El Charro Road extension in terms of traffic volume (diversion), intersection LOS at key locations, and travel times on key links are generally positive, as the project benefits other competing north-south roadways, such as Santa Rita Road, by re-routing traffic from them. These beneficial effects are consistent regardless of the direction or peak hour of travel. The project has similar positive circulation effects on Valley Avenue and Stoneridge Drive.

The extension has a positive or neutral effect on most segments, intersections, and key routes studied, although there are some roadways which may experience increased traffic with the proposed extension. The main roadways affected by the project are Bernal Avenue and Stanley Boulevard, which serve as feeder roads to the extension. For this reason, plus the added traffic on El Charro Road, the intersection of El Charro Road at Stoneridge Drive is anticipated to increase its average delay with the extension. Nevertheless, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS D or better.

The El Charro Road volume increase cannot be solely explained by decreases on competing routes. This as well as the existing travel patterns assessment presented in this memorandum suggests there is some level of cut-through traffic from I-680 and I-580 as well as induced regional demand that would use the new roadway extension. Approximately 10% to 15% of traffic volume on the extension would be regional cut-through traffic without a local origin or destination. This represents about 150 to 200 vehicles in the peak direction, less cut-through traffic than what is currently observed on Santa Rita Road (200 to 350 vehicles). Approximately 50% of the cut-through traffic on El Charro Road would come from existing cut-through traffic on Santa Rita Road.

The results suggest that of the four land use development projects proposed in the study area that are currently under consideration by the city, the developments with the largest potential impact on the study intersections are Kiewit and Senior Residential. The impact of these Mike Tassano
January 31, 2025

Page 37 of 37 ends

developments on the average intersection delay is about double the other two land use developments (Arroyo Lago and Amazon).

The analysis of the effects of a partial extension of El Charro Road between Stoneridge Drive and Busch Road yields smaller benefits than a full extension, resulting in about half of the average delay reduction. Under this scenario, no new intersections would operate at unacceptable conditions, but the extension would increase traffic along Busch Road, making traffic operations along that segment approach unacceptable levels of service.

Finally, an extension of El Charro Road as a two-lane roadway would also result in about half of the average delay reduction compared to the four-lane extension, with intersections such as El Charro Road at Stanley Boulevard and El Charro Road at Stoneridge Boulevard reaching unacceptable LOS conditions and resulting in major travel time delays along El Charro Road compared to the four-lane roadway scenarios.

Attachments
Appendix A LOS Calculations for Circulation Analysis
Appendix B LOS Calculations for Sensitivity Assessment
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 1: Santa Rita Rd & W Las Positas Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 270 240 230 220 390 90 650 960 130 100 1160 620 Future Volume (vph) 270 240 230 220 390 90 650 960 130 100 1160 620 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1433 3433 3430 3433 5085 1556 3433 5085 1551 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1433 3433 3430 3433 5085 1556 3433 5085 1551 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 287 255 245 234 415 96 691 1021 138 106 1234 660 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 181 0 17 0 0 0 75 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 287 255 64 234 494 0 691 1021 63 106 1234 660 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 82 1 1 27
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 9 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 29.8 29.8 10.6 26.7 26.0 53.6 53.6 7.2 34.8 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 31.2 31.2 10.6 28.1 26.0 55.0 55.0 7.2 36.2 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.23 0.22 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.30 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 391 920 372 303 803 743 2330 713 205 1533 1551 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.07 c0.07 c0.14 c0.20 0.20 0.03 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 0.43
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.28 0.17 0.77 0.62 0.93 0.44 0.09 0.52 0.80 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 51.4 35.4 34.4 53.5 41.1 46.1 22.0 18.4 54.7 38.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.94 1.86 0.74 0.68 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 0.1 0.1 10.6 1.0 15.1 0.5 0.2 0.7 3.5 0.6 Delay (s) 57.4 35.5 34.5 64.1 42.1 62.7 21.2 34.3 41.2 30.0 0.6 Level of Service E D C E D E CCDCA
Approach Delay (s) 43.2 49.0 37.7 20.9
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 2: Santa Rita Rd & Stoneridge Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 630 240 340 890 380 770 1200 560 260 1300 50 Future Volume (vph) 30 630 240 340 890 380 770 1200 560 260 1300 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1597 5085 1560 3433 3539 1547 3433 5085 1554 3433 5053 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1597 5085 1560 3433 3539 1547 3433 5085 1554 3433 5053 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 692 264 374 978 418 846 1319 615 286 1429 55 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 1 4 400 1 2 7040
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 692 264 374 978 274 846 1319 488 286 1480 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7726
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4684
Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 26.2 120.0 19.4 42.6 42.6 26.0 44.6 44.6 11.0 29.6 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 27.6 120.0 19.4 44.0 44.0 26.0 46.0 46.0 11.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.23 1.00 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 39 1169 1560 555 1297 567 743 1949 595 314 1305 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.14 0.11 c0.28 c0.25 0.26 0.08 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.18 0.31
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.59 0.17 0.67 0.75 0.48 1.14 0.68 0.82 0.91 1.13 Uniform Delay, d1 58.3 41.2 0.0 47.3 33.3 29.3 47.0 30.8 33.3 54.0 44.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.41 0.28 1.33 1.36 Incremental Delay, d2 82.5 1.2 0.2 2.5 3.0 1.4 71.1 1.0 6.4 21.6 67.5 Delay (s) 140.7 42.4 0.2 49.9 36.3 30.6 112.3 13.5 15.7 93.6 128.0 Level of Service F D A D D C F B B F F
Approach Delay (s) 34.4 37.8 44.0 122.4
Approach LOS C D D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 3: Santa Rita Rd & Valley Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 320 270 190 280 440 1090 180 860 160 610 1060 260 Future Volume (vph) 320 270 190 280 440 1090 180 860 160 610 1060 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1521 1770 3539 1558 3433 3441 3600 3539 1491 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1521 1770 3539 1558 3433 3441 3433 3539 1491 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 368 310 218 322 506 1253 207 989 184 701 1218 299 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 182 0000 1 2000 1 1 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 368 310 36 322 506 1253 207 1161 0 701 1218 181 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 12 11 32
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 1 12
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 18.4 18.4 25.3 28.0 120.0 11.4 34.7 23.0 46.3 46.3 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 19.6 19.6 25.3 29.2 120.0 11.4 36.1 23.0 47.7 47.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.24 1.00 0.10 0.30 0.19 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.2 5.2 4.0 5.2 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 449 578 248 373 861 1558 326 1035 690 1406 592 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.09 0.18 0.14 0.06 c0.34 c0.19 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.80 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.54 0.14 0.86 0.59 0.80 0.63 1.12 1.02 0.87 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 50.8 46.0 43.0 45.7 40.1 0.0 52.3 42.0 48.5 33.2 24.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 1.37 Incremental Delay, d2 10.6 0.5 0.1 17.7 1.6 4.5 3.0 67.8 34.4 5.9 1.0 Delay (s) 61.4 46.5 43.1 63.4 41.7 4.5 55.3 109.7 76.6 34.7 34.9 Level of Service E D D E D A E F E C C
Approach Delay (s) 51.8 22.7 101.6 48.0
Approach LOS D C F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 51.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 4: Main St/Santa Rita Rd & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 10 10 350 20 400 10 570 100 150 810 10 Future Volume (vph) 10 10 10 350 20 400 10 570 100 150 810 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1726 1749 1583 1770 3539 1533 1770 3531 Flt Permitted 0.84 0.71 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1476 1299 1583 1770 3539 1533 1770 3531 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 13 13 449 26 513 13 731 128 192 1038 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 09000 2 300 8 6010
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 30 0 0 475 490 13 731 42 192 1050 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 21 21 20 1 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5197
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 3 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 25.0 42.5 5.0 23.8 23.8 13.0 31.8 Effective Green, g (s) 25.5 25.5 43.0 5.0 24.5 24.5 13.0 32.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.57 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.7 4.7 4.0 4.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 501 441 907 118 1156 500 306 1530
v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.01 0.21 c0.11 c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.37 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.06 1.08 0.54 0.11 0.63 0.08 0.63 0.69
Uniform Delay, d1 16.7 24.8 9.9 32.9 21.4 17.5 28.8 17.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.34 0.71 0.43 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 65.1 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 2.9 1.3
Delay (s) 16.7 89.8 10.2 44.4 16.1 7.6 31.6 18.4
Level of Service B F B D B A C B
Approach Delay (s) 16.7 48.5 15.3 20.5
Approach LOS B D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 5: First St & Ray St/Vineyard Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 120 160 180 250 110 60 490 70 40 710 210 Future Volume (vph) 20 120 160 180 250 110 60 490 70 40 710 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1659 1504 1800 1770 3459 1752 3539 1545 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1659 1504 1493 1770 3459 1752 3539 1545 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 128 170 191 266 117 64 521 74 43 755 223 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 61 0 0 20 0 0 11 0 0 0 154
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 237 0 191 363 0 64 584 0 43 755 69 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 29 16 4 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 10 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.3 17.3 20.7 20.7 4.0 26.5 3.0 25.5 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 17.6 21.0 21.0 4.0 27.4 3.0 26.4 26.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.32 0.04 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 366 343 371 444 83 1115 61 1099 479
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 0.13 c0.20 c0.04 0.17 0.02 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.69 0.51 0.82 0.77 0.52 0.70 0.69 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 27.0 31.2 27.6 30.2 40.0 23.5 40.6 25.7 21.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 5.9 1.2 11.2 34.8 1.8 30.9 3.5 0.6 Delay (s) 27.1 37.1 28.8 41.4 74.9 25.2 71.4 29.2 21.8
Level of Service C D C D E C E C C
Approach Delay (s) 36.4 37.2 30.1 29.3
Approach LOS DDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 6: Sunol Blvd/First St & Bernal Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 200 240 290 280 700 40 220 520 30 30 670 240 Future Volume (vph) 200 240 290 280 700 40 220 520 30 30 670 240 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1558 3433 3507 3433 1863 1559 1504 3126 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1558 3433 3507 3433 1863 1559 1504 3126 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 225 270 326 315 787 45 247 584 34 34 753 270 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 162 04000 1 90 2 90
Lane Group Flow (vph) 225 270 164 315 828 0 247 584 15 34 994 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1427
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 3 1
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 17.8 17.8 26.6 31.9 10.9 53.0 53.0 4.8 46.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.5 18.7 18.7 26.6 32.8 10.9 53.9 53.9 4.8 47.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.27 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 357 551 242 760 958 311 836 700 60 1245 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.08 0.09 c0.24 c0.07 0.31 0.02 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.49 0.68 0.41 0.86 0.79 0.70 0.02 0.57 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 51.5 46.3 47.8 40.0 41.5 53.5 26.5 18.4 56.6 31.9 Progression Factor 0.89 0.78 0.53 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 1.00 1.12 0.73 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.7 7.1 0.4 8.2 12.8 4.7 0.1 6.3 2.9 Delay (s) 49.5 36.9 32.5 40.4 49.7 61.4 27.1 18.4 69.9 26.1 Level of Service DDCDD ECBEC
Approach Delay (s) 38.6 47.1 36.6 27.5
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 7: Bernal Ave & Vineyard Ave/Tawny Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 160 40 100 100 70 100 30 330 20 40 550 120 Future Volume (vph) 160 40 100 100 70 100 30 330 20 40 550 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1429 1336 1538 1328 1770 3503 1765 1806 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.49 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1429 1336 1538 1328 197 3503 907 1806 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 190 48 119 119 83 119 36 393 24 48 655 143 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 82 0 0 0 100 050080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 171 104 0 0 202 19 36 412 0 48 790 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 4 2
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 2 6
Permitted Phases 3 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 14.5 12.4 12.4 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 15.1 12.6 12.6 38.9 38.9 38.9 38.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 274 256 246 212 97 1733 448 893
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.08 c0.13 0.12 c0.44
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.18 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.41 0.82 0.09 0.37 0.24 0.11 0.89
Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 27.8 31.9 28.1 12.3 11.4 10.6 17.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.4 18.5 0.1 2.4 0.1 0.1 10.4 Delay (s) 32.3 28.2 50.4 28.2 14.7 11.4 10.7 28.3
Level of Service C C D C B B B C
Approach Delay (s) 30.2 42.2 11.7 27.3
Approach LOS C D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 8: Bernal Ave/Valley Ave & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 280 270 50 190 940 950 10 540 150 160 370 180 Future Volume (vph) 280 270 50 190 940 950 10 540 150 160 370 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.6 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3443 3433 3231 1441 1770 3539 1553 3400 3346 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3443 3433 3231 1441 1770 3539 1553 3400 3346 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 308 297 55 209 1033 1044 11 593 165 176 407 198 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 40 60 0 0 123 0 55 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 308 336 0 209 1411 566 11 593 42 176 550 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 1 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 37.5 9.6 38.1 54.7 1.0 23.0 23.0 10.2 32.2 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 39.9 9.6 40.5 53.1 1.0 24.3 25.6 10.2 33.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.53 0.01 0.24 0.26 0.10 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.4 4.0 6.4 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 308 1373 329 1308 765 17 859 397 346 1120 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.10 0.06 c0.44 c0.39 0.01 c0.17 0.05 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.24 0.64 1.08 0.74 0.65 0.69 0.11 0.51 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 45.5 20.0 43.5 29.8 18.1 49.3 34.4 28.5 42.5 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 51.3 0.4 4.0 48.9 3.9 62.0 2.4 0.1 1.2 0.3 Delay (s) 96.8 20.4 47.5 78.7 22.0 111.3 36.8 28.6 43.7 26.8 Level of Service F C D E C F DCDC
Approach Delay (s) 56.1 60.3 36.1 30.6
Approach LOS E E D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 10: El Charro Rd & Stoneridge Dr/Jack London Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 9 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 880 440 10 20 730 710 10 90 10 670 90 440 Future Volume (vph) 880 440 10 20 730 710 10 90 10 670 90 440 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.94 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 3539 1306 1399 3539 2765 1770 2228 4990 1203 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3539 1306 1399 3539 2765 1770 2228 4990 1203 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 967 484 11 22 802 780 11 99 11 736 99 484 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00600 2 7 9060000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 967 484 5 22 802 501 11 104 0 736 99 484 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 20% 29% 2% 2% 2% 66% 2% 2% 58% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 52374 38
Permitted Phases 6 2 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.4 59.5 59.5 8.2 39.3 63.3 0.7 14.1 24.0 38.1 125.1 Effective Green, g (s) 28.4 60.8 60.8 8.2 40.6 65.9 0.7 16.1 24.0 39.4 125.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.07 0.32 0.53 0.01 0.13 0.19 0.31 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1132 1719 634 91 1148 1456 9 286 957 378 1563 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.14 0.02 c0.23 0.07 0.01 0.05 c0.15 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.11 c0.31
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.28 0.01 0.24 0.70 0.34 1.22 0.36 0.77 0.26 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 19.1 16.6 55.5 36.9 17.1 62.2 49.8 47.9 32.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.1 385.4 0.6 3.6 0.3 0.5 Delay (s) 52.6 19.2 16.6 56.0 38.8 17.2 447.6 50.4 51.5 32.3 0.5 Level of Service D B B E D B F D D C A
Approach Delay (s) 41.3 28.5 86.5 31.4
Approach LOS D C F C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 125.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 11: Isabel Ave & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 10 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 560 430 2280 540 460 1560
Future Volume (vph) 560 430 2280 540 460 1560
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 13 13 13 13 13 13
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1636 5255 2880 3547 3657
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1636 5255 2880 3547 3657
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 622 478 2533 600 511 1733
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 182 0 287 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 622 296 2533 313 511 1733
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 15.7 40.6 40.6 11.4 56.1
Effective Green, g (s) 16.8 16.8 41.7 41.7 12.5 57.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.52 0.52 0.16 0.72
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 744 343 2739 1501 554 2614
v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 c0.48 c0.14 0.47
v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.86 0.92 0.21 0.92 0.66
Uniform Delay, d1 30.3 30.5 17.7 10.3 33.3 6.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 19.3 6.7 0.3 21.0 1.3
Delay (s) 38.4 49.8 24.4 10.6 54.3 7.5
Level of Service D D C B D A
Approach Delay (s) 43.3 21.8 18.2
Approach LOS D C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 12: Valley Ave & Busch Rd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 11 ends

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 190 580 1510 90 120 390
Future Volume (vph) 190 580 1510 90 120 390
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.91 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 3499 3068 1441
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 3499 3068 1441
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 202 617 1606 96 128 415
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0060 1 8 9 1 8 8
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 617 1696 0 147 19
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 15% 2%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 1 9 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 53.6 35.6 5.4 5.4
Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 54.9 36.9 6.3 6.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.79 0.53 0.09 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 496 2807 1865 279 131
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.17 c0.48 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.22 0.91 0.53 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 26.9 1.8 14.6 30.0 29.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 6.9 0.8 0.2
Delay (s) 27.3 1.8 21.6 30.9 29.2
Level of Service C A C C C
Approach Delay (s) 8.1 21.6 30.2
Approach LOS A C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 13: Tassajara Rd & I-580 WB
Synchro 11 Report

Page 12 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 260 0 1350 480 0 1040 950 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 260 0 1350 480 0 1040 950 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.1 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 526 0 274 0 1421 505 0 1095 1000
RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 4 700 1 9 4000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 526 0 227 0 1421 311 0 1095 1000 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm NA Free
Protected Phases 4 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 6 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 15.6 33.1 33.1 33.1 60.0
Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 17.0 35.0 36.9 35.0 60.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.58 0.61 0.58 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 972 789 2064 973 2966 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 0.40 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.20 c0.63
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.29 0.69 0.32 0.37 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 16.8 8.7 5.5 6.6 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.4 1.9 0.9 0.4 1.9
Delay (s) 19.3 17.2 10.6 6.4 7.0 1.9
Level of Service B B B A A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 18.6 9.5 4.6
Approach LOS ABAA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 14: Santa Rita Rd & I-580 EB/Pimlico Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 13 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 680 110 660 150 0 230 0 1050 90 160 1220 330 Future Volume (vph) 680 110 660 150 0 230 0 1050 90 160 1220 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.86 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1561 3433 2787 6325 1770 3539 1536 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1561 3433 2787 6325 1770 3539 1536 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 708 115 688 156 0 240 0 1094 94 167 1271 344 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0000000 1 5000 1 7 2
Lane Group Flow (vph) 708 115 688 156 0 240 0 1173 0 167 1271 172 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot pt+ov NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 11.9 90.0 20.5 23.6 29.6 8.7 42.3 42.3 Effective Green, g (s) 23.4 13.3 90.0 21.0 25.0 31.0 8.7 43.7 45.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.15 1.00 0.23 0.28 0.34 0.10 0.49 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 892 275 1561 801 774 2178 171 1718 769 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.19 c0.09 c0.36
v/s Ratio Perm c0.44 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.42 0.44 0.19 0.31 0.54 0.98 0.74 0.22
Uniform Delay, d1 31.0 34.8 0.0 27.7 25.7 23.7 40.5 18.6 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.6 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 1.0 61.1 2.9 0.7 Delay (s) 35.6 35.2 0.9 27.8 25.8 24.7 101.6 21.5 13.3
Level of Service D D A C C C F C B
Approach Delay (s) 19.8 26.5 24.7 27.4
Approach LOS B C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 15: I-680 NB & Sunol Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 14 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 110 450 0 0 1260 470 30 0 470 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 110 450 0 0 1260 470 30 0 470 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1845 5085 1583 1543 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1845 5085 1583 1543 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 117 479 0 0 1340 500 32 0 500 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 2 2 7000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 117 479 0 0 1340 273 0 32 500 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 17% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Split NA Free
Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 33.4 23.3 23.3 1.0 45.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 34.7 24.6 24.6 2.3 45.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.77 0.55 0.55 0.05 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 1422 2779 865 78 2787
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.26 c0.26 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 c0.18
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.34 0.48 0.32 0.41 0.18
Uniform Delay, d1 18.0 1.6 6.3 5.6 20.7 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.1 0.6 1.0 3.5 0.1
Delay (s) 19.6 1.7 6.9 6.5 24.2 0.1
Level of Service B A A A C A
Approach Delay (s) 5.2 6.8 1.6 0.0
Approach LOS AAAA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project AM 16: Sunol Blvd & I-680 SB
Synchro 11 Report

Page 15 ends

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 260 250 520 760 310 120
Future Volume (vph) 260 250 520 760 310 120
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1863 2728 1656 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1863 2728 1656 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 274 263 547 800 326 126
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 509 0 94
Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 263 547 291 326 32
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 9% 2%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 35.4 20.5 20.5 14.0 14.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 36.7 21.8 21.8 15.3 15.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.61 0.36 0.36 0.26 0.26
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 321 1139 676 991 422 403
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.14 c0.29 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.23 0.81 0.29 0.77 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 23.8 5.3 17.2 13.6 20.7 17.0
Progression Factor 0.87 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 19.1 0.1 10.1 0.8 8.5 0.1
Delay (s) 39.7 6.2 27.3 14.4 29.3 17.1
Level of Service D A C B C B
Approach Delay (s) 23.3 19.6 25.9
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 1: Santa Rita Rd & W Las Positas Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 600 370 640 180 150 80 430 1340 170 110 1080 350 Future Volume (vph) 600 370 640 180 150 80 430 1340 170 110 1080 350 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1550 3433 3339 3433 5085 1559 3433 5085 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1550 3433 3339 3433 5085 1559 3433 5085 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 619 381 660 186 155 82 443 1381 175 113 1113 361 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 260 0 59 0 0 0 80 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 619 381 400 186 178 0 443 1381 95 113 1113 361 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 4 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.4 32.8 32.8 9.4 16.8 19.1 52.0 52.0 7.0 39.9 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 25.4 34.2 34.2 9.4 18.2 19.1 53.4 53.4 7.0 41.3 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.44 0.44 0.06 0.34 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 726 1008 441 268 506 546 2262 693 200 1750 1557 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 0.11 c0.05 0.05 c0.13 0.27 0.03 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.06 0.23
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.38 0.91 0.69 0.35 0.81 0.61 0.14 0.56 0.64 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 45.5 34.4 41.4 53.9 45.6 48.7 25.4 19.7 55.0 33.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.26 0.02 1.10 0.35 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 0.1 21.5 6.2 0.2 4.1 0.6 0.2 1.9 1.6 0.3 Delay (s) 54.7 34.5 62.8 60.1 45.8 26.3 7.2 0.5 62.2 13.2 0.3 Level of Service D C E E D C AAEBA
Approach Delay (s) 53.3 52.1 10.8 13.8
Approach LOS D D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 2: Santa Rita Rd & Stoneridge Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 1090 800 500 560 390 340 1410 560 480 1440 40 Future Volume (vph) 100 1090 800 500 560 390 340 1410 560 480 1440 40 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1560 3433 3539 1544 3433 5085 1550 3433 5061 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1560 3433 3539 1544 3433 5085 1550 3433 5061 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 104 1135 833 521 583 406 354 1469 583 500 1500 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 2 2 600 2 0 1030
Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 1135 833 521 583 180 354 1469 382 500 1539 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 10 5 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 4 5 2
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 34.2 120.0 17.8 41.4 41.4 12.0 33.2 33.2 16.0 37.2 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 35.6 120.0 17.8 42.8 42.8 12.0 34.6 34.6 16.0 38.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.30 1.00 0.15 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 1508 1560 509 1262 550 343 1466 446 457 1627 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.22 c0.15 0.16 0.10 c0.29 0.15 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.53 0.12 0.25
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.75 0.53 1.02 0.46 0.33 1.03 1.00 0.86 1.09 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 53.0 38.2 0.0 51.1 29.7 28.1 54.0 42.7 40.3 52.0 39.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.60 0.72 0.64 0.53 Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 2.6 1.3 46.0 0.6 0.7 49.7 20.4 14.1 64.2 9.9 Delay (s) 61.0 40.8 1.3 97.1 30.3 28.8 101.9 46.1 43.0 97.4 30.8 Level of Service E D A F C C F D D F C
Approach Delay (s) 25.9 53.0 53.6 47.1
Approach LOS CDDD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 3: Santa Rita Rd & Valley Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 380 600 120 200 380 860 130 880 140 1090 1050 210 Future Volume (vph) 380 600 120 200 380 860 130 880 140 1090 1050 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1542 1770 3539 1557 3433 3460 3600 3539 1509 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1542 1770 3539 1557 3433 3460 3433 3539 1509 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 388 612 122 204 388 878 133 898 143 1112 1071 214 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 96 0000 1 1000 5 3
Lane Group Flow (vph) 388 612 26 204 388 878 133 1030 0 1112 1071 161 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 15 1 26
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2115
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.8 24.1 24.1 13.9 21.2 120.0 8.1 33.4 30.0 55.3 55.3 Effective Green, g (s) 16.8 25.3 25.3 13.9 22.4 120.0 8.1 34.8 30.0 56.7 56.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.19 1.00 0.07 0.29 0.25 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.2 5.2 4.0 5.2 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 480 746 325 205 660 1557 231 1003 900 1672 713 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.17 c0.12 0.11 0.04 c0.30 c0.31 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.56 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.82 0.08 1.00 0.59 0.56 0.58 1.03 1.24 0.64 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 50.0 45.2 38.0 53.0 44.6 0.0 54.3 42.6 45.0 23.9 18.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.86 1.33 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 6.9 0.0 55.5 1.7 1.2 2.2 35.6 111.1 1.0 0.4 Delay (s) 59.2 52.0 38.0 101.8 36.8 1.2 56.4 78.2 147.4 21.7 25.3 Level of Service E D D F D A E E F C C
Approach Delay (s) 53.0 24.6 75.7 80.3
Approach LOS D C E F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 61.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 4: Main St/Santa Rita Rd & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 10 10 90 10 240 10 630 340 240 810 20 Future Volume (vph) 20 10 10 90 10 240 10 630 340 240 810 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1749 1779 1583 1770 3539 1544 1770 3524 Flt Permitted 0.86 0.72 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1541 1343 1583 1770 3539 1544 1770 3524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 11 11 101 11 270 11 708 382 270 910 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 08000 2 000 2 4 9020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 36 0 0 112 250 11 708 133 270 930 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 3 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 3 1
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 3 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 34.7 5.0 22.0 22.0 14.7 31.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 35.2 5.0 22.7 22.7 14.7 32.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.54 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.7 4.7 4.0 4.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 377 328 852 135 1228 535 397 1745
v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 0.01 0.20 c0.15 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.08 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.34 0.29 0.08 0.58 0.25 0.68 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 20.4 8.3 28.1 17.4 15.3 23.2 11.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.24 0.87 0.65 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 3.8 0.3
Delay (s) 19.1 20.6 8.3 34.8 15.8 10.1 27.0 11.6
Level of Service B C A C B B C B
Approach Delay (s) 19.1 11.9 14.0 15.1
Approach LOS BBBB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 5: First St & Ray St/Vineyard Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 180 110 110 120 40 70 970 140 60 410 40 Future Volume (vph) 70 180 110 110 120 40 70 970 140 60 410 40 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1739 1504 1800 1770 3460 1770 3539 1544 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1739 1504 1516 1770 3460 1770 3539 1544 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 75 194 118 118 129 43 75 1043 151 65 441 43 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 14 0 0 10 0 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 75 287 0 118 158 0 75 1184 0 65 441 31 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 4 2 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3322
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 19.5 14.3 14.3 7.2 39.7 4.0 36.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 19.8 19.8 14.6 14.6 7.2 40.6 4.0 37.4 37.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.43 0.04 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 368 362 231 276 134 1478 74 1393 607 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.17 0.08 c0.09 0.04 c0.34 c0.04 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.20 0.79 0.51 0.57 0.56 0.80 0.88 0.32 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 35.7 36.9 37.3 42.4 23.7 45.3 19.9 17.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 11.4 1.9 2.8 5.0 4.7 64.1 0.6 0.2 Delay (s) 31.4 47.0 38.8 40.1 47.4 28.4 109.3 20.5 18.0 Level of Service C D D D D C F C B
Approach Delay (s) 44.0 39.6 29.5 30.9
Approach LOS DDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 6: Sunol Blvd/First St & Bernal Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 340 590 120 100 250 30 250 690 480 60 420 240 Future Volume (vph) 340 590 120 100 250 30 250 690 480 60 420 240 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3475 3433 1863 1559 1504 3071 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3475 3433 1863 1559 1504 3071 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 370 641 130 109 272 33 272 750 522 65 457 261 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 94 0 12 0 0 0 148 0 88 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 370 641 36 109 293 0 272 750 374 65 630 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 3 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 22.4 22.4 4.0 13.8 7.8 36.8 36.8 4.0 33.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 23.3 23.3 4.0 14.7 7.8 37.7 37.7 4.0 33.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 508 970 433 161 600 315 826 691 70 1224 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.18 c0.03 0.08 0.08 c0.40 c0.04 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.24
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.66 0.08 0.68 0.49 0.86 0.91 0.54 0.93 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 34.6 27.3 22.9 39.9 31.7 38.1 22.0 17.3 40.4 19.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 1.7 0.1 10.7 0.6 20.9 15.6 3.0 82.1 1.5 Delay (s) 39.7 29.0 23.0 50.6 32.4 59.0 37.6 20.3 122.4 20.9 Level of Service DCCDC EDCFC
Approach Delay (s) 31.8 37.2 35.6 29.3
Approach LOS CDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 7: Bernal Ave & Vineyard Ave/Tawny Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 140 70 30 40 40 90 50 880 50 80 310 120 Future Volume (vph) 140 70 30 40 40 90 50 880 50 80 310 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1429 1426 1545 1346 1770 3505 1767 1775 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.22 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1429 1426 1545 1346 771 3505 415 1775 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 147 74 32 42 42 95 53 926 53 84 326 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 0 0 0 87 0400 1 50
Lane Group Flow (vph) 126 107 0 0 84 8 53 975 0 84 437 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 17 4 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 3 1
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 2 6
Permitted Phases 3 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.2 9.2 4.4 4.4 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 9.8 4.6 4.6 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 258 258 131 114 394 1794 212 908
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.07 c0.05 c0.28 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.41 0.64 0.07 0.13 0.54 0.40 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 19.9 19.6 24.0 22.8 6.9 8.9 8.1 8.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 7.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.4
Delay (s) 20.4 20.0 31.7 22.9 7.1 9.3 9.3 9.0
Level of Service C B C C A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 20.2 27.0 9.1 9.0
Approach LOS C C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 8: Bernal Ave/Valley Ave & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 260 1090 60 80 140 300 40 410 290 790 520 210 Future Volume (vph) 260 1090 60 80 140 300 40 410 290 790 520 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3509 3433 3106 1441 1770 3539 1561 3433 3372 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3509 3433 3106 1441 1770 3539 1561 3433 3372 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 295 1239 68 91 159 341 45 466 330 898 591 239 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0400 1 2 0 6 800 1 7 80 4 80
Lane Group Flow (vph) 295 1303 0 91 210 102 45 466 152 898 782 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3111
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 32.4 4.0 24.4 49.0 3.0 9.3 9.3 24.6 30.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 34.8 4.0 26.8 53.8 3.0 10.6 10.6 24.6 32.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.39 0.04 0.30 0.60 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.27 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.4 4.0 6.4 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 457 1356 152 924 861 59 416 183 938 1206 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.37 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.03 c0.13 c0.26 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.96 0.60 0.23 0.12 0.76 1.12 0.83 0.96 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 37.0 26.9 42.2 23.8 7.8 43.1 39.7 38.8 32.2 24.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 16.7 6.2 0.6 0.1 43.5 81.0 25.6 19.6 2.7 Delay (s) 40.1 43.6 48.4 24.4 7.9 86.6 120.7 64.4 51.8 26.9 Level of Service D D D C A F F E D C
Approach Delay (s) 43.0 23.3 96.8 39.8
Approach LOS D C F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 10: El Charro Rd & Stoneridge Dr/Jack London Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 9 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 660 950 10 10 560 1500 10 20 10 1180 20 840 Future Volume (vph) 660 950 10 10 560 1500 10 20 10 1180 20 840 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.94 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 3539 1547 1770 3539 2787 1770 3362 4990 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3539 1547 1770 3539 2787 1770 3362 4990 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 776 1118 12 12 659 1765 12 24 12 1388 24 988 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00600 4 3 80 1 10000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 776 1118 6 12 659 1327 12 25 0 1388 24 988 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Prot NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 2 3 7 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 6 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 43.4 43.4 0.8 29.1 61.5 0.8 4.2 27.1 31.2 94.8 Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 44.7 44.7 0.8 30.4 62.8 0.8 6.2 27.1 32.5 94.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.47 0.47 0.01 0.32 0.66 0.01 0.07 0.29 0.34 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 6.0 4.0 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 794 1668 729 14 1134 1846 14 219 1426 638 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.32 0.01 0.19 c0.48 0.01 0.01 c0.28 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.62
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.67 0.01 0.86 0.58 0.72 0.86 0.11 0.97 0.04 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 19.4 13.3 46.9 26.9 10.3 46.9 41.7 33.5 20.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 26.0 1.1 0.0 160.8 0.8 1.4 160.8 0.2 17.7 0.0 1.9 Delay (s) 65.7 20.4 13.3 207.8 27.6 11.7 207.8 41.9 51.2 20.8 1.9 Level of Service E C B F C B F D D C A
Approach Delay (s) 38.8 17.0 83.4 30.6
Approach LOS D B F C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 11: Isabel Ave & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 10 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 700 400 1210 260 750 2160
Future Volume (vph) 700 400 1210 260 750 2160
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 13 13 13 13 13 13
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1636 3657 1636 3547 3657
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1636 3657 1636 3547 3657
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 778 444 1344 289 833 2400
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 309 0 173 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 778 135 1344 116 833 2400
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.8 16.8 28.9 28.9 17.0 50.0
Effective Green, g (s) 17.9 17.9 30.0 30.0 18.1 51.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.68
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 846 390 1462 654 856 2491
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.37 0.23 c0.66
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.35 0.92 0.18 0.97 0.96
Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 23.7 21.4 14.5 28.2 11.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 14.8 0.5 10.8 0.6 24.2 11.3
Delay (s) 42.6 24.2 32.2 15.1 52.4 22.4
Level of Service D C C B D C
Approach Delay (s) 35.9 29.1 30.1
Approach LOS D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 12: Valley Ave & Busch Rd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 11 ends

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 310 1270 830 100 100 210
Future Volume (vph) 310 1270 830 100 100 210
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.92 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 3476 3257 1441
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 3476 3257 1441
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 333 1366 892 108 108 226
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0060 1 0 4 1 0 4
Lane Group Flow (vph) 333 1366 994 0 117 9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 1 9 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.1 101.3 75.2 8.5 8.5
Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 102.6 76.5 9.4 9.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.85 0.64 0.08 0.08
Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 517 3025 2215 255 112
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.39 0.29 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 47.9 2.1 11.0 52.9 51.3
Progression Factor 0.98 0.43 1.26 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1
Delay (s) 49.0 1.3 14.5 53.3 51.4
Level of Service D A B D D
Approach Delay (s) 10.6 14.5 52.7
Approach LOS B B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 13: Tassajara Rd & I-580 WB
Synchro 11 Report

Page 12 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 520 0 240 0 1750 610 0 1550 830 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 520 0 240 0 1750 610 0 1550 830 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 553 0 255 0 1862 649 0 1649 883
RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 5 600 2 4 5000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 553 0 199 0 1862 404 0 1649 883 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm NA Free
Protected Phases 4 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 6 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 7.6 26.1 26.1 26.1 45.0
Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 9.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 45.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 686 557 2202 984 3164 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.53 0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.26 c0.56
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.36 0.85 0.41 0.52 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 17.2 15.5 6.8 4.3 4.8 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 7.8 0.8 4.2 1.3 0.6 1.4
Delay (s) 25.0 16.3 11.0 5.6 5.4 1.4
Level of Service C B B A A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 22.2 9.6 4.0
Approach LOS A C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 14: Santa Rita Rd & I-580 EB/Pimlico Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 13 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 510 170 60 150 0 340 0 2490 120 300 1100 710 Future Volume (vph) 510 170 60 150 0 340 0 2490 120 300 1100 710 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.86 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1561 3433 2787 6360 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1561 3433 2787 6360 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 526 175 62 155 0 351 0 2567 124 309 1134 732 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000006000 2 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 526 175 62 155 0 351 0 2685 0 309 1134 442 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot pt+ov NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.9 17.2 120.0 16.4 38.1 45.2 21.9 71.1 71.1 Effective Green, g (s) 23.3 18.6 120.0 16.9 39.5 46.6 21.9 72.5 72.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.16 1.00 0.14 0.33 0.39 0.18 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 666 288 1561 483 917 2469 323 2138 956 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.09 0.05 c0.13 c0.42 c0.17 0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.28
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.61 0.04 0.32 0.38 1.09 0.96 0.53 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 47.3 0.0 46.4 30.9 36.7 48.6 13.8 13.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 2.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 46.3 38.0 0.9 1.6 Delay (s) 51.8 49.8 0.0 46.5 31.0 81.5 86.6 14.8 14.7
Level of Service D D A D C F F B B
Approach Delay (s) 47.1 35.8 81.5 24.9
Approach LOS D D F C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 15: I-680 NB & Sunol Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 14 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 400 670 0 0 380 480 20 10 800 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 400 670 0 0 380 480 20 10 800 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 5085 1548 1803 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 5085 1548 1803 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 430 720 0 0 409 516 22 11 860 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 1 9 5000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 430 720 0 0 409 321 0 33 860 0 0 0 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Split NA Free
Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 47.4 25.4 25.4 2.0 60.0
Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 48.7 26.7 26.7 3.3 60.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.81 0.44 0.44 0.05 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 531 1512 2262 688 99 2787
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.39 0.08 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 c0.31
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.48 0.18 0.47 0.33 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 19.4 1.7 10.0 11.7 27.3 0.0
Progression Factor 1.11 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.8 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.3
Delay (s) 28.4 2.0 10.1 12.2 29.3 0.3
Level of Service C A B B C A
Approach Delay (s) 11.9 11.2 1.4 0.0
Approach LOS BBAA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved No Project PM 16: Sunol Blvd & I-680 SB
Synchro 11 Report

Page 15 ends

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 760 190 220 300 120
Future Volume (vph) 20 760 190 220 300 120
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1863 2787 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1863 2787 1770 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 21 800 200 232 316 126
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 111 0 94
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 800 200 121 316 32
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.4 35.3 29.9 29.9 14.1 14.1
Effective Green, g (s) 1.4 36.6 31.2 31.2 15.4 15.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.61 0.52 0.52 0.26 0.26
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 41 1136 968 1449 454 406
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.43 0.11 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.70 0.21 0.08 0.70 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 29.0 8.0 7.7 7.2 20.2 16.9
Progression Factor 1.05 1.12 0.59 0.17 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 10.3 3.6 0.1 0.0 4.6 0.1
Delay (s) 40.6 12.6 4.7 1.2 24.8 17.0
Level of Service D B A A C B
Approach Delay (s) 13.3 2.8 22.6
Approach LOS B A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 1: Santa Rita Rd & W Las Positas Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 240 230 230 230 390 90 650 920 140 100 1150 630 Future Volume (vph) 240 230 230 230 390 90 650 920 140 100 1150 630 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1433 3433 3430 3433 5085 1556 3433 5085 1551 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1433 3433 3430 3433 5085 1556 3433 5085 1551 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 255 245 245 245 415 96 691 979 149 106 1223 670 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 181 0 17 0 0 0 80 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 245 64 245 494 0 691 979 69 106 1223 670 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 82 1 1 27
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 9 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.3 29.8 29.8 10.4 27.9 26.0 53.8 53.8 7.2 35.0 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.3 31.2 31.2 10.4 29.3 26.0 55.2 55.2 7.2 36.4 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.24 0.22 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.30 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 351 920 372 297 837 743 2339 715 205 1542 1551 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.07 c0.07 c0.14 c0.20 0.19 0.03 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 0.43
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.27 0.17 0.82 0.59 0.93 0.42 0.10 0.52 0.79 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 52.2 35.3 34.4 53.9 40.0 46.1 21.7 18.3 54.7 38.3 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.96 0.74 0.69 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.2 0.1 0.1 16.0 0.7 15.6 0.5 0.2 0.7 3.3 0.7 Delay (s) 58.4 35.4 34.5 69.9 40.7 64.6 22.1 36.1 41.2 29.9 0.7 Level of Service E D C E D E CDDCA
Approach Delay (s) 43.0 50.2 39.4 20.7
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 2: Santa Rita Rd & Stoneridge Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 640 250 170 870 370 830 1180 200 260 1300 50 Future Volume (vph) 30 640 250 170 870 370 830 1180 200 260 1300 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1597 5085 1560 3433 3539 1547 3433 5085 1554 3433 5053 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1597 5085 1560 3433 3539 1547 3433 5085 1554 3433 5053 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 703 275 187 956 407 912 1297 220 286 1429 55 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 1 5 100 1 2 0040
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 703 275 187 956 256 912 1297 100 286 1480 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7726
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4684
Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 26.6 120.0 15.6 39.2 39.2 29.4 48.0 48.0 11.0 29.6 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 28.0 120.0 15.6 40.6 40.6 29.4 49.4 49.4 11.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.23 1.00 0.13 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 39 1186 1560 446 1197 523 841 2093 639 314 1305 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.14 0.05 c0.27 c0.27 0.26 0.08 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.17 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.59 0.18 0.42 0.80 0.49 1.08 0.62 0.16 0.91 1.13 Uniform Delay, d1 58.3 40.9 0.0 48.0 36.0 31.5 45.3 27.9 22.2 54.0 44.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.47 0.26 1.32 1.34 Incremental Delay, d2 82.5 1.2 0.2 0.2 4.4 1.5 52.4 1.0 0.4 21.7 67.5 Delay (s) 140.7 42.1 0.2 48.3 40.4 33.0 92.8 14.1 6.0 93.0 127.3 Level of Service F D A D D C F B A F F
Approach Delay (s) 34.0 39.4 42.9 121.8
Approach LOS C D D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 61.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 3: Santa Rita Rd & Valley Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 350 260 180 300 540 1000 170 650 160 500 1010 280 Future Volume (vph) 350 260 180 300 540 1000 170 650 160 500 1010 280 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1520 1770 3539 1558 3433 3415 3600 3539 1491 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1520 1770 3539 1558 3433 3415 3433 3539 1491 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph) 402 299 207 345 621 1149 195 747 184 575 1161 322 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 0000 1 7000 1 5 1
Lane Group Flow (vph) 402 299 77 345 621 1149 195 914 0 575 1161 171 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 12 11 32
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 1 12
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 18.2 18.2 27.7 28.4 120.0 9.1 36.5 19.0 46.4 46.4 Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 19.4 19.4 27.7 29.6 120.0 9.1 37.9 19.0 47.8 47.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.25 1.00 0.08 0.32 0.16 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.2 5.2 4.0 5.2 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 500 572 245 408 872 1558 260 1078 570 1409 593 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 0.08 c0.19 0.18 0.06 c0.27 c0.16 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.74 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.52 0.31 0.85 0.71 0.74 0.75 0.85 1.01 0.82 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 46.1 44.4 44.1 41.3 0.0 54.3 38.4 50.5 32.3 24.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.70 1.37 Incremental Delay, d2 8.6 0.4 0.3 14.3 3.4 3.2 10.3 8.3 36.6 4.7 1.0 Delay (s) 58.2 46.5 44.7 58.4 44.7 3.2 64.6 46.6 74.6 27.5 34.7 Level of Service E D D E D A E D E C C
Approach Delay (s) 51.3 24.4 49.8 41.8
Approach LOS DCDD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 4: Main St/Santa Rita Rd & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 10 10 190 20 330 10 340 100 140 730 10 Future Volume (vph) 10 10 10 190 20 330 10 340 100 140 730 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1721 1749 1583 1770 3539 1528 1770 3530 Flt Permitted 0.88 0.72 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1546 1313 1583 1770 3539 1528 1770 3530 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 13 13 244 26 423 13 436 128 179 936 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 0 37 0 0 94 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 29 0 0 270 386 13 436 34 179 948 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 21 21 20 1 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5197
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 3 1 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 3 3 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 21.0 55.6 5.0 21.9 21.9 30.1 47.0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 21.5 56.1 5.0 22.6 22.6 30.1 47.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.35 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.7 4.7 4.0 4.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 385 327 1030 102 927 400 618 1953
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.01 0.12 0.10 c0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.21 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.83 0.37 0.13 0.47 0.08 0.29 0.49
Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 30.6 6.9 38.5 26.8 24.0 20.3 11.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.29 0.88 0.87 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 14.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2
Delay (s) 24.8 45.4 7.0 49.9 23.9 20.9 20.4 11.9
Level of Service C D A DCCCB
Approach Delay (s) 24.8 22.0 23.8 13.3
Approach LOS C C C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 5: First St & Ray St/Vineyard Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 40 120 160 170 250 110 60 740 60 40 770 200 Future Volume (vph) 40 120 160 170 250 110 60 740 60 40 770 200 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1659 1504 1800 1770 3491 1752 3539 1545 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1659 1504 1493 1770 3491 1752 3539 1545 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 128 170 181 266 117 64 787 64 43 819 213 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 61 0 0 20 006000 1 4 7
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 237 0 181 363 0 64 845 0 43 819 66 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 29 16 4 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 10 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.3 17.3 20.6 20.6 4.0 26.6 3.0 25.6 25.6 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 17.6 20.9 20.9 4.0 27.5 3.0 26.5 26.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.32 0.04 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 366 343 369 442 83 1129 61 1103 481
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.14 0.12 c0.20 c0.04 c0.24 0.02 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.69 0.49 0.82 0.77 0.75 0.70 0.74 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 31.2 27.5 30.3 40.0 25.7 40.6 26.2 21.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 5.9 1.0 11.7 34.8 4.6 30.9 4.5 0.6 Delay (s) 27.5 37.1 28.5 42.0 74.9 30.2 71.4 30.7 21.6
Level of Service C D C D E C E C C
Approach Delay (s) 35.9 37.7 33.3 30.6
Approach LOS DDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 6: Sunol Blvd/First St & Bernal Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 190 280 290 300 670 40 250 620 130 30 690 230 Future Volume (vph) 190 280 290 300 670 40 250 620 130 30 690 230 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1558 3433 3505 3433 1863 1559 1504 3134 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1558 3433 3505 3433 1863 1559 1504 3134 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 213 315 326 337 753 45 281 697 146 34 775 258 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 154 04000 7 30 2 50
Lane Group Flow (vph) 213 315 172 337 794 0 281 697 73 34 1008 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1427
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 3 1
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 18.7 18.7 24.5 31.0 11.0 54.2 54.2 4.8 48.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 19.6 19.6 24.5 31.9 11.0 55.1 55.1 4.8 48.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.27 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 349 578 254 700 931 314 855 715 60 1277 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.09 0.10 c0.23 c0.08 c0.37 0.02 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.54 0.68 0.48 0.85 0.89 0.82 0.10 0.57 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 51.6 46.1 47.2 42.1 41.8 53.9 28.0 18.4 56.6 31.0 Progression Factor 0.89 0.78 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 0.87 1.11 0.73 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 1.0 6.8 0.5 7.7 25.3 8.2 0.3 6.4 2.7 Delay (s) 49.2 37.2 32.9 42.7 49.5 77.1 31.9 16.3 69.3 25.3 Level of Service DDCDD ECBEC
Approach Delay (s) 38.5 47.5 41.2 26.7
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 7: Bernal Ave & Vineyard Ave/Tawny Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 7 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 170 40 100 100 70 100 30 470 20 40 570 120 Future Volume (vph) 170 40 100 100 70 100 30 470 20 40 570 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1429 1336 1538 1328 1770 3513 1767 1807 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.39 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1429 1336 1538 1328 190 3513 716 1807 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 202 48 119 119 83 119 36 560 24 48 679 143 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 80 0 0 0 100 030080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 107 0 0 202 19 36 581 0 48 814 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 4 2
Parking (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 2 6
Permitted Phases 3 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 15.0 12.2 12.2 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.4 Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 15.6 12.4 12.4 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 281 262 240 207 94 1740 354 895
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.08 c0.13 0.17 c0.45
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.19 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.41 0.84 0.09 0.38 0.33 0.14 0.91
Uniform Delay, d1 29.3 27.8 32.5 28.6 12.5 12.1 10.8 18.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.4 21.7 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.2 12.9 Delay (s) 33.1 28.2 54.2 28.7 15.0 12.2 11.0 31.3
Level of Service C C D C B B B C
Approach Delay (s) 30.6 44.8 12.4 30.2
Approach LOS C D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 8: Bernal Ave/Valley Ave & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 8 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 280 640 50 250 970 750 10 460 480 130 330 170 Future Volume (vph) 280 640 50 250 970 750 10 460 480 130 330 170 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.6 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3494 3433 3260 1425 1770 3539 1554 3400 3339 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3494 3433 3260 1425 1770 3539 1554 3400 3339 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 308 703 55 275 1066 824 11 505 527 143 363 187 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0500 2 8 6 400 1 8 50 6 10
Lane Group Flow (vph) 308 753 0 275 1368 430 11 505 342 143 489 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 1 5 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 52738 74
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 36.5 11.5 39.0 45.0 1.1 26.3 26.3 6.0 31.2 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 38.9 11.5 41.4 49.8 1.1 27.6 28.9 6.0 32.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.39 0.12 0.41 0.50 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.06 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.4 4.0 6.4 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 308 1359 394 1349 709 19 976 449 204 1085 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.22 0.08 c0.42 c0.05 0.01 0.14 0.04 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 c0.22
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.55 0.70 1.01 0.61 0.58 0.52 0.76 0.70 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 45.5 23.8 42.6 29.3 18.1 49.2 30.6 32.4 46.1 26.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 51.3 1.6 5.3 28.1 1.5 36.3 0.5 7.5 10.4 0.3 Delay (s) 96.8 25.4 47.9 57.4 19.5 85.5 31.0 39.9 56.5 27.0 Level of Service F C D E B F C D E C
Approach Delay (s) 46.0 47.6 36.1 33.1
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 9: Stanley Blvd & El Charro Rd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 9 ends

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 760 490 1700 560 30 270
Future Volume (vph) 760 490 1700 560 30 270
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 3539 2787 3433 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 3539 2787 3433 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 844 544 1889 622 33 300
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 145 0 3
Lane Group Flow (vph) 844 544 1889 477 33 297
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot pm+ov
Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 1
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.4 86.4 56.9 56.9 10.6 36.0
Effective Green, g (s) 25.5 86.5 57.0 57.0 10.7 36.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.82 0.54 0.54 0.10 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 832 2909 1917 1510 349 604
v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.15 c0.53 0.01 c0.12
v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.07
v/c Ratio 1.01 0.19 0.99 0.32 0.09 0.49
Uniform Delay, d1 39.9 2.0 23.7 13.3 42.9 27.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 34.8 0.0 17.1 0.1 0.1 0.6
Delay (s) 74.7 2.0 40.7 13.4 43.0 27.9
Level of Service E A D B D C
Approach Delay (s) 46.2 34.0 29.4
Approach LOS D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 10: El Charro Rd & Stoneridge Dr/Jack London Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 10 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 900 0 30 210 570 680 60 380 810 470 280 370 Future Volume (vph) 900 0 30 210 570 680 60 380 810 470 280 370 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 1322 2714 3539 2764 1770 3125 1583 4990 3283 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 1322 2714 3539 2764 1770 3125 1583 4990 3283 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 989 0 33 231 626 747 66 418 890 516 308 407 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 21 0 0 122 0 0 659 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 989 0 12 231 626 625 66 418 231 516 308 407 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 20% 29% 2% 2% 2% 66% 2% 2% 58% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 52374 38
Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.3 43.4 16.8 30.9 48.4 7.5 29.2 29.2 17.5 39.9 126.2 Effective Green, g (s) 29.3 44.7 16.8 32.2 51.0 7.5 31.2 31.2 17.5 41.2 126.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.35 0.13 0.26 0.40 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.33 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.3 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1158 468 361 902 1116 105 772 391 691 1071 1563 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.09 c0.18 0.08 0.04 0.13 c0.10 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.14 c0.15 0.26
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.02 0.64 0.69 0.56 0.63 0.54 0.59 0.75 0.29 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 26.6 51.8 42.5 29.0 58.0 41.3 41.9 52.2 31.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 0.0 2.7 2.3 0.5 8.2 0.6 1.9 4.2 0.1 0.4 Delay (s) 52.5 26.6 54.6 44.9 29.5 66.2 41.9 43.7 56.4 31.7 0.4 Level of Service D CDDCEDDECA
Approach Delay (s) 51.6 39.1 44.3 31.7
Approach LOS DDDC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 126.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 11: Isabel Ave & Stanley Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 11 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 420 500 2250 600 410 1610
Future Volume (vph) 420 500 2250 600 410 1610
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 13 13 13 13 13 13
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3547 1636 5255 2880 3547 3657
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3547 1636 5255 2880 3547 3657
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 467 556 2500 667 456 1789
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 166 0 332 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 467 390 2500 335 456 1789
Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.7 18.7 39.1 39.1 9.9 53.1
Effective Green, g (s) 19.8 19.8 40.2 40.2 11.0 54.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.14 0.68
Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 877 404 2640 1447 487 2477
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.48 c0.13 0.49
v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.96 0.95 0.23 0.94 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 26.1 29.8 18.9 11.2 34.2 8.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 35.3 8.9 0.4 25.5 1.9
Delay (s) 26.7 65.1 27.8 11.6 59.7 10.0
Level of Service C E C B E B
Approach Delay (s) 47.6 24.4 20.1
Approach LOS D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 12: Valley Ave & Busch Rd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 12 ends

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 220 510 1200 60 100 670
Future Volume (vph) 220 510 1200 60 100 670
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.88 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 3505 3070 1441
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 3505 3070 1441
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 234 543 1277 64 106 713
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0060 2 3 5 2 3 5
Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 543 1335 0 228 121
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 6% 15% 2%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 1 9 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 45.8 27.8 7.0 7.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 47.1 29.1 7.9 7.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.75 0.46 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 544 2645 1618 384 180
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.15 c0.38 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm c0.08
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.21 0.83 0.59 0.67
Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 2.4 14.7 26.0 26.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 3.6 1.6 7.5
Delay (s) 24.3 2.4 18.3 27.7 33.8
Level of Service C A B C C
Approach Delay (s) 9.0 18.3 30.3
Approach LOS A B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 13: Tassajara Rd & I-580 WB
Synchro 11 Report

Page 13 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 490 0 280 0 1280 480 0 1020 880 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 490 0 280 0 1280 480 0 1020 880 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.1 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 516 0 295 0 1347 505 0 1074 926
RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 6 400 1 9 1000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 516 0 231 0 1347 314 0 1074 926 Turn Type Prot Perm NA Perm NA Free
Protected Phases 4 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 6 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 7.6 21.1 21.1 21.1 40.0
Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 9.0 23.0 24.9 23.0 40.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.58 0.62 0.58 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9
Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 772 627 2034 985 2923 1583
v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 0.38 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.20 c0.58
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.37 0.66 0.32 0.37 0.58
Uniform Delay, d1 14.1 13.1 5.8 3.6 4.6 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.8 1.7 0.9 0.4 1.6
Delay (s) 17.1 13.9 7.5 4.4 4.9 1.6
Level of Service B B A A A A
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 15.9 6.7 3.4
Approach LOS ABAA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 14: Santa Rita Rd & I-580 EB/Pimlico Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 14 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 660 110 660 150 0 230 0 950 90 170 1200 340 Future Volume (vph) 660 110 660 150 0 230 0 950 90 170 1200 340 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.86 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1561 3433 2787 6318 1770 3539 1536 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1561 3433 2787 6318 1770 3539 1536 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 688 115 688 156 0 240 0 990 94 177 1250 354 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0000000 1 7000 1 7 5
Lane Group Flow (vph) 688 115 688 156 0 240 0 1067 0 177 1250 179 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot pt+ov NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 6 5 2
Permitted Phases Free 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 11.9 90.0 20.2 24.1 29.6 9.0 42.6 42.6 Effective Green, g (s) 22.9 13.3 90.0 20.7 25.5 31.0 9.0 44.0 45.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.15 1.00 0.23 0.28 0.34 0.10 0.49 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 873 275 1561 789 789 2176 177 1730 774 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.17 c0.10 c0.35
v/s Ratio Perm c0.44 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.42 0.44 0.20 0.30 0.49 1.00 0.72 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 31.3 34.8 0.0 28.0 25.3 23.3 40.5 18.2 12.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.8 67.6 2.7 0.7 Delay (s) 35.7 35.2 0.9 28.0 25.4 24.1 108.1 20.8 13.2
Level of Service D D A C C C F C B
Approach Delay (s) 19.6 26.4 24.1 28.0
Approach LOS B C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 15: I-680 NB & Sunol Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 15 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 110 450 0 0 1270 470 30 0 610 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 110 450 0 0 1270 470 30 0 610 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.7
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.88
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1845 5085 1583 1543 2787
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1845 5085 1583 1543 2787
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 117 479 0 0 1351 500 32 0 649 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 2 2 9000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 117 479 0 0 1351 271 0 32 649 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 17% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Split NA Free
Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.3 33.4 23.1 23.1 1.0 45.0
Effective Green, g (s) 6.3 34.7 24.4 24.4 2.3 45.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.77 0.54 0.54 0.05 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 1422 2757 858 78 2787
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.26 c0.27 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 c0.23
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.34 0.49 0.32 0.41 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 1.6 6.4 5.7 20.7 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 0.6 1.0 3.5 0.2
Delay (s) 19.3 1.7 7.0 6.7 24.2 0.2
Level of Service B A A A C A
Approach Delay (s) 5.2 6.9 1.3 0.0
Approach LOS AAAA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 5.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project AM 16: Sunol Blvd & I-680 SB
Synchro 11 Report

Page 16 ends

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 260 250 520 770 310 110
Future Volume (vph) 260 250 520 770 310 110
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1863 2728 1656 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1863 2728 1656 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 274 263 547 811 326 116
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 516 0 86
Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 263 547 295 326 30
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 9% 2%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 2 4
Permitted Phases 2 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 35.4 20.5 20.5 14.0 14.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 36.7 21.8 21.8 15.3 15.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.61 0.36 0.36 0.26 0.26
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 321 1139 676 991 422 403
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.14 c0.29 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.23 0.81 0.30 0.77 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 23.8 5.3 17.2 13.6 20.7 17.0
Progression Factor 0.90 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 19.2 0.1 10.1 0.8 8.5 0.1
Delay (s) 40.7 6.2 27.3 14.4 29.3 17.0
Level of Service D A C B C B
Approach Delay (s) 23.8 19.6 26.1
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project PM 1: Santa Rita Rd & W Las Positas Blvd
Synchro 11 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 590 370 650 200 150 80 430 1330 190 110 1100 320 Future Volume (vph) 590 370 650 200 150 80 430 1330 190 110 1100 320 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1550 3433 3340 3433 5085 1559 3433 5085 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1550 3433 3340 3433 5085 1559 3433 5085 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 608 381 670 206 155 82 443 1371 196 113 1134 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 261 0 59 0 0 0 82 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 608 381 409 206 178 0 443 1371 114 113 1134 330 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 4 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Free Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.9 33.7 33.7 9.7 18.5 19.1 50.4 50.4 7.4 38.7 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 24.9 35.1 35.1 9.7 19.9 19.1 51.8 51.8 7.4 40.1 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.17 0.16 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.33 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 712 1035 453 277 553 546 2195 672 211 1699 1557 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 0.11 c0.06 0.05 c0.13 0.27 0.03 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.07 0.21
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.37 0.90 0.74 0.32 0.81 0.62 0.17 0.54 0.67 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 33.7 40.8 53.9 44.1 48.7 26.5 20.9 54.6 34.2 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.35 0.05 1.05 0.38 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.4 0.1 20.6 9.1 0.1 5.0 0.8 0.3 1.2 1.9 0.3 Delay (s) 55.2 33.7 61.4 63.0 44.2 33.1 9.9 1.3 58.5 14.9 0.3 Level of Service E C E E D C AAEBA
Approach Delay (s) 52.8 53.0 14.2 15.0
Approach LOS D D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project PM 2: Santa Rita Rd & Stoneridge Dr
Synchro 11 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 1130 890 170 630 410 330 1420 250 500 1480 40 Future Volume (vph) 100 1130 890 170 630 410 330 1420 250 500 1480 40 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1560 3433 3539 1544 3433 5085 1551 3433 5061 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1560 3433 3539 1544 3433 5085 1551 3433 5061 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 104 1177 927 177 656 427 344 1479 260 521 1542 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00000 2 3 500 1 0 3020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 1177 927 177 656 193 344 1479 157 521 1582 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 10 5 14
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 4 5 2
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases Free 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 35.4 120.0 7.2 34.6 34.6 13.7 39.6 39.6 19.0 44.9 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 36.8 120.0 7.2 36.0 36.0 13.7 41.0 41.0 19.0 46.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.31 1.00 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.16 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.8 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 5.0 1.8 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 1559 1560 205 1061 463 391 1737 529 543 1952 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.23 0.05 0.19 0.10 c0.29 c0.15 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.59 0.12 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.75 0.59 0.86 0.62 0.42 0.88 0.85 0.30 0.96 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 55.5 37.5 0.0 55.9 36.1 33.6 52.3 36.7 28.9 50.1 32.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 0.46 0.28 0.63 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 47.2 2.5 1.7 28.4 1.6 1.3 15.9 4.4 1.1 22.5 2.7 Delay (s) 102.7 40.1 1.7 84.3 37.7 34.9 71.2 21.4 9.2 53.9 18.0 Level of Service F D A F D C E C A D B
Approach Delay (s) 26.9 43.3 28.1 26.9
Approach LOS CDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Approved Plus Project PM 3: Santa Rita Rd & Valley Ave
Synchro 11 Report

Page 3 ends

Pleasanton City CouncilFebruary 18, 2025

Pleasanton City Council
February 18, 2025