Apr 9-City Council Agenda Item 14 — Reedley City Council, April 9, 2024 (part 8 of 10)

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

T RAFFIC I MPACT S TUDY
DECEMBER 2023

E AST H UNTSMAN AVENUE INDUSTRIAL P ARK P ROJECT

REEDLEY , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Report\Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project TIS.docx (12/21/23)

APPENDIX C

VOLUME DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEETS
Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
1 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
NBL 154 3 157 106 13 119
NBT 153 7 160 217 25 242
NBR 46 0 46 50 0 50
SBL 55 0 55 101 0 101
SBT 178 25 203 187 9 196
SBR 138 0 138 119 0 119
EBL 78 0 78 131 0 131
EBT 273 0 273 316 0 316
EBR 128 14 142 207 4 211
WBL 65 0 65 58 0 58
WBT 406 0 406 218 0 218
WBR 84 0 84 82 0 82
North Leg
Approach 371 25 396 407 9 416
Departure 315 7 322 430 25 455
Total 686 32 718 837 34 871
South Leg
Approach 353 10 363 373 38 411
Departure 371 39 410 452 13 465
Total 724 49 773 825 51 876
East Leg
Approach 555 0 555 358 0 358
Departure 374 0 374 467 0 467
Total 929 0 929 825 0 825
West Leg
Approach 479 14 493 654 4 658
Departure 698 3 701 443 13 456
Total 1,177 17 1,194 1,097 17 1,114
Total Approaches
Approach 1,758 49 1,807 1,792 51 1,843
Departure 1,758 49 1,807 1,792 51 1,843
Total 3,516 98 3,614 3,584 102 3,686
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2 Buttonwillow Avenue/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 327 0 327 372 0 372
NBR 4 16 20 3 6 9
SBL 24 39 63 11 13 24
SBT 299 0 299 411 0 411
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 3 5 8 2 16 18
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 10 10 20 5 38 43
North Leg
Approach 323 39 362 422 13 435
Departure 337 10 347 377 38 415
Total 660 49 709 799 51 850
South Leg
Approach 331 16 347 375 6 381
Departure 302 5 307 413 16 429
Total 633 21 654 788 22 810
East Leg
Approach 13 15 28 7 54 61
Departure 28 55 83 14 19 33
Total 41 70 111 21 73 94
West Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approaches
Approach 667 70 737 804 73 877
Departure 667 70 737 804 73 877
Total 1,334 140 1,474 1,608 146 1,754
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3 Englehart Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
NBL 44 0 44 51 0 51
NBT 59 2 61 48 6 54
NBR 12 2 14 8 6 14
SBL 4 0 4 9 0 9
SBT 38 7 45 73 2 75
SBR 28 0 28 19 0 19
EBL 16 0 16 16 0 16
EBT 228 0 228 311 0 311
EBR 36 0 36 49 0 49
WBL 22 7 29 12 2 14
WBT 291 0 291 233 0 233
WBR 2 0 2 5 0 5
North Leg
Approach 70 7 77 101 2 103
Departure 77 2 79 69 6 75
Total 147 9 156 170 8 178
South Leg
Approach 115 4 119 107 12 119
Departure 96 14 110 134 4 138
Total 211 18 229 241 16 257
East Leg
Approach 315 7 322 250 2 252
Departure 244 2 246 328 6 334
Total 559 9 568 578 8 586
West Leg
Approach 280 0 280 376 0 376
Departure 363 0 363 303 0 303
Total 643 0 643 679 0 679
Total Approaches
Approach 780 18 798 834 16 850
Departure 780 18 798 834 16 850
Total 1,560 36 1,596 1,668 32 1,700
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4 Englehart Avenue/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 8 12 20 7 4 11
NBT 109 0 109 108 0 108
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBT 84 0 84 128 0 128
SBR 12 12 24 4 4 8
EBL 5 3 8 5 12 17
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 1 3 4 11 12 23
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Leg
Approach 96 12 108 132 4 136
Departure 114 3 117 113 12 125
Total 210 15 225 245 16 261
South Leg
Approach 117 12 129 115 4 119
Departure 85 3 88 139 12 151
Total 202 15 217 254 16 270
East Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Leg
Approach 6 6 12 16 24 40
Departure 20 24 44 11 8 19
Total 26 30 56 27 32 59
Total Approaches
Approach 219 30 249 263 32 295
Departure 219 30 249 263 32 295
Total 438 60 498 526 64 590
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
5 Project Driveway 1/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 0 12 12 0 43 43
EBL 0 44 44 0 15 15
EBT 11 10 11 19 4 23
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 15 3 18 17 10 27
WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Leg
Approach 0 12 12 0 43 43
Departure 0 44 44 0 15 15
Total 0 56 56 0 58 58
South Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Leg
Approach 15 3 18 17 10 27
Departure 11 10 11 19 4 23
Total 26 13 29 36 14 50
West Leg
Approach 11 54 55 19 19 38
Departure 15 15 30 17 53 70
Total 26 69 85 36 72 108
Total Approaches
Approach 26 69 85 36 72 108
Departure 26 69 85 36 72 108
Total 52 138 170 72 144 216
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
6 Project Driveway 2/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 6 6 0 25 25
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 0 3 3 0 10 10
EBL 0 10 10 0 4 4
EBT 11 0 11 19 0 19
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 15 0 15 17 0 17
WBR 0 25 25 0 9 9
North Leg
Approach 0 9 9 0 35 35
Departure 0 35 35 0 13 13
Total 0 44 44 0 48 48
South Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Leg
Approach 15 25 40 17 9 26
Departure 11 6 17 19 25 44
Total 26 31 57 36 34 70
West Leg
Approach 11 10 21 19 4 23
Departure 15 3 18 17 10 27
Total 26 13 39 36 14 50
Total Approaches
Approach 26 44 70 36 48 84
Departure 26 44 70 36 48 84
Total 52 88 140 72 96 168
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
7 Apple Avenue/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 5 0 5 9 0 9
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 5 0 5 1 0 1
EBL 28 0 28 4 0 4
EBT 6 44 50 10 15 25
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 5 12 17 6 43 49
WBR 10 0 10 11 0 11
North Leg
Approach 10 0 10 10 0 10
Departure 38 0 38 15 0 15
Total 48 0 48 25 0 25
South Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Leg
Approach 15 12 27 17 43 60
Departure 11 44 55 19 15 34
Total 26 56 82 36 58 94
West Leg
Approach 34 44 78 14 15 29
Departure 10 12 22 7 43 50
Total 44 56 100 21 58 79
Total Approaches
Approach 59 56 115 41 58 99
Departure 59 56 115 41 58 99
Total 118 112 230 82 116 198
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
8 Buttonwillow Avenue/Eastside Packing Driveway
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 327 16 343 370 6 376
NBR 8 0 8 3 0 3
SBL 1 0 1 0 0 0
SBT 299 5 304 374 16 390
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 1 0 1 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 3 0 3 3 0 3
North Leg
Approach 300 5 305 374 16 390
Departure 330 16 346 373 6 379
Total 630 21 651 747 22 769
South Leg
Approach 335 16 351 373 6 379
Departure 300 5 305 374 16 390
Total 635 21 656 747 22 769
East Leg
Approach 4 0 4 3 0 3
Departure 9 0 9 3 0 3
Total 13 0 13 6 0 6
West Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approaches
Approach 639 21 660 750 22 772
Departure 639 21 660 750 22 772
Total 1,278 42 1,320 1,500 44 1,544
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
9 Buttonwillow Avenue/Floral Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 292 16 308 351 6 357
NBR 17 0 17 32 0 32
SBL 18 0 18 27 0 27
SBT 282 5 287 347 16 363
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 37 0 37 15 0 15
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 43 0 43 22 0 22
North Leg
Approach 300 5 305 374 16 390
Departure 335 16 351 373 6 379
Total 635 21 656 747 22 769
South Leg
Approach 309 16 325 383 6 389
Departure 319 5 324 362 16 378
Total 628 21 649 745 22 767
East Leg
Approach 80 0 80 37 0 37
Departure 35 0 35 59 0 59
Total 115 0 115 96 0 96
West Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approaches
Approach 689 21 710 794 22 816
Departure 689 21 710 794 22 816
Total 1,378 42 1,420 1,588 44 1,632
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Net Existing Existing Net Existing
Without Project Plus Without Project Plus
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐1 ‐ Existing Peak Hour PCE Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
10 Englehart Avenue/Floral Avenue
NBL 12 0 12 3 0 3
NBT 94 12 106 92 4 96
NBR 8 0 8 5 0 5
SBL 4 0 4 12 0 12
SBT 63 3 66 125 12 137
SBR 8 0 8 4 0 4
EBL 9 0 9 3 0 3
EBT 12 0 12 38 0 38
EBR 3 0 3 9 0 9
WBL 3 0 3 5 0 5
WBT 45 0 45 16 0 16
WBR 16 0 16 17 0 17
North Leg
Approach 75 3 78 141 12 153
Departure 119 12 131 112 4 116
Total 194 15 209 253 16 269
South Leg
Approach 114 12 126 100 4 104
Departure 69 3 72 139 12 151
Total 183 15 198 239 16 255
East Leg
Approach 64 0 64 38 0 38
Departure 24 0 24 55 0 55
Total 88 0 88 93 0 93
West Leg
Approach 24 0 24 50 0 50
Departure 65 0 65 23 0 23
Total 89 0 89 73 0 73
Total Approaches
Approach 277 15 292 329 16 345
Departure 277 15 292 329 16 345
Total 554 30 584 658 32 690
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2023 TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project 1 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue 1 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue NBL 154 0 154 3 157 NBL 106 0 106 13 119
NBT 153 0 153 7 160 NBT 217 0 217 25 242
NBR 46 1 47 0 47 NBR 50 3 53 0 53
SBL 55 9 64 0 64 SBL 101 9 110 0 110
SBT 178 2 180 25 205 SBT 187 2 189 9 198
SBR 138 12 150 0 150 SBR 119 9 128 0 128
EBL 78 0 78 0 78 EBL 131 0 131 0 131
EBT 273 4 277 0 277 EBT 316 10 326 0 326
EBR 128 0 128 14 142 EBR 207 0 207 4 211
WBL 65 2 67 0 67 WBL 58 2 60 0 60
WBT 406 8 414 0 414 WBT 218 6 224 0 224
WBR 84 8 92 0 92 WBR 82 6 88 0 88
North Leg North Leg
Approach 371 23 394 25 419 Approach 407 20 427 9 436
Departure 315 8 323 7 330 Departure 430 6 436 25 461
Total 686 31 717 32 749 Total 837 26 863 34 897
South Leg South Leg
Approach 353 1 354 10 364 Approach 373 3 376 38 414
Departure 371 4 375 39 414 Departure 452 4 456 13 469
Total 724 5 729 49 778 Total 825 7 832 51 883
East Leg East Leg
Approach 555 18 573 0 573 Approach 358 14 372 0 372
Departure 374 14 388 0 388 Departure 467 22 489 0 489
Total 929 32 961 0 961 Total 825 36 861 0 861
West Leg West Leg
Approach 479 4 483 14 497 Approach 654 10 664 4 668
Departure 698 20 718 3 721 Departure 443 15 458 13 471
Total 1,177 24 1,201 17 1,218 Total 1,097 25 1,122 17 1,139 Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 1,758 46 1,804 49 1,853 Approach 1,792 47 1,839 51 1,890 Departure 1,758 46 1,804 49 1,853 Departure 1,792 47 1,839 51 1,890 Total 3,516 92 3,608 98 3,706 Total 3,584 94 3,678 102 3,780 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
2 Buttonwillow Avenue/Huntsman Avenue 2 Buttonwillow Avenue/Huntsman Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 327 1 328 0 328 NBT 372 2 374 0 374
NBR 4 0 4 16 20 NBR 3 0 3 6 9
SBL 24 1 25 39 64 SBL 11 0 11 13 24
SBT 299 2 301 0 301 SBT 411 1 412 0 412
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 3 0 3 5 8 WBL 2 0 2 16 18
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 10 0 10 10 20 WBR 5 0 5 38 43
North Leg North Leg
Approach 323 3 326 39 365 Approach 422 1 423 13 436
Departure 337 1 338 10 348 Departure 377 2 379 38 417
Total 660 4 664 49 713 Total 799 3 802 51 853
South Leg South Leg
Approach 331 1 332 16 348 Approach 375 2 377 6 383
Departure 302 2 304 5 309 Departure 413 1 414 16 430
Total 633 3 636 21 657 Total 788 3 791 22 813
East Leg East Leg
Approach 13 0 13 15 28 Approach 7 0 7 54 61
Departure 28 1 29 55 84 Departure 14 0 14 19 33
Total 41 1 42 70 112 Total 21 0 21 73 94
West Leg West Leg
Approach 00000 Approach 00000
Departure 00000 Departure 00000
Total 00000 Total 00000
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 667 4 671 70 741 Approach 804 3 807 73 880
Departure 667 4 671 70 741 Departure 804 3 807 73 880
Total 1,334 8 1,342 140 1,482 Total 1,608 6 1,614 146 1,760 P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
3 Englehart Avenue/Dinuba Avenue 3 Englehart Avenue/Dinuba Avenue NBL 44 1 45 0 45 NBL 51 3 54 0 54
NBT 59 0 59 2 61 NBT 48 0 48 6 54
NBR 12 0 12 2 14 NBR 8 0 8 6 14
SBL 4 0 4 0 4 SBL 9 0 9 0 9
SBT 38 0 38 7 45 SBT 73 0 73 2 75
SBR 28 0 28 0 28 SBR 19 1 20 0 20
EBL 16 1 17 0 17 EBL 16 1 17 0 17
EBT 228 1 229 0 229 EBT 311 1 312 0 312
EBR 36 2 38 0 38 EBR 49 2 51 0 51
WBL 22 0 22 7 29 WBL 12 0 12 2 14
WBT 291 0 291 0 291 WBT 233 1 234 0 234
WBR 2 0 2 0 2 WBR 5 0 5 0 5
North Leg North Leg
Approach 70 0 70 7 77 Approach 101 1 102 2 104
Departure 77 1 78 2 80 Departure 69 1 70 6 76
Total 147 1 148 9 157 Total 170 2 172 8 180
South Leg South Leg
Approach 115 1 116 4 120 Approach 107 3 110 12 122
Departure 96 2 98 14 112 Departure 134 2 136 4 140
Total 211 3 214 18 232 Total 241 5 246 16 262
East Leg East Leg
Approach 315 0 315 7 322 Approach 250 1 251 2 253
Departure 244 1 245 2 247 Departure 328 1 329 6 335
Total 559 1 560 9 569 Total 578 2 580 8 588
West Leg West Leg
Approach 280 4 284 0 284 Approach 376 4 380 0 380
Departure 363 1 364 0 364 Departure 303 5 308 0 308
Total 643 5 648 0 648 Total 679 9 688 0 688
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 780 5 785 18 803 Approach 834 9 843 16 859
Departure 780 5 785 18 803 Departure 834 9 843 16 859
Total 1,560 10 1,570 36 1,606 Total 1,668 18 1,686 32 1,718 P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
4 Englehart Avenue/Huntsman Avenue 4 Englehart Avenue/Huntsman Avenue NBL 8 0 8 12 20 NBL 7 0 7 4 11
NBT 109 1 110 0 110 NBT 108 3 111 0 111
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0
SBT 84 2 86 0 86 SBT 128 2 130 0 130
SBR 12 0 12 12 24 SBR 4 0 4 4 8
EBL 5 0 5 3 8 EBL 5 0 5 12 17
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 1 0 1 3 4 EBR 11 0 11 12 23
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0
North Leg North Leg
Approach 96 2 98 12 110 Approach 132 2 134 4 138
Departure 114 1 115 3 118 Departure 113 3 116 12 128
Total 210 3 213 15 228 Total 245 5 250 16 266
South Leg South Leg
Approach 117 1 118 12 130 Approach 115 3 118 4 122
Departure 85 2 87 3 90 Departure 139 2 141 12 153
Total 202 3 205 15 220 Total 254 5 259 16 275
East Leg East Leg
Approach 00000 Approach 00000
Departure 00000 Departure 00000
Total 00000 Total 00000
West Leg West Leg
Approach 6 0 6 6 12 Approach 16 0 16 24 40
Departure 20 0 20 24 44 Departure 11 0 11 8 19
Total 26 0 26 30 56 Total 27 0 27 32 59
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 219 3 222 30 252 Approach 263 5 268 32 300
Departure 219 3 222 30 252 Departure 263 5 268 32 300
Total 438 6 444 60 504 Total 526 10 536 64 600
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
5 Project Driveway 1/Huntsman Avenue 5 Project Driveway 1/Huntsman Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 0 0 0 12 12 SBR 0 0 0 43 43
EBL 0 0 0 44 44 EBL 0 0 0 15 15
EBT 11 0 11 10 21 EBT 19 0 19 4 23
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 15 0 15 3 18 WBT 17 0 17 10 27
WBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0
North Leg North Leg
Approach 0 0 0 12 12 Approach 0 0 0 43 43
Departure 0 0 0 44 44 Departure 0 0 0 15 15
Total 0 0 0 56 56 Total 0 0 0 58 58
South Leg South Leg
Approach 00000 Approach 00000
Departure 00000 Departure 00000
Total 00000 Total 00000
East Leg East Leg
Approach 15 0 15 3 18 Approach 17 0 17 10 27
Departure 11 0 11 10 21 Departure 19 0 19 4 23
Total 26 0 26 13 39 Total 36 0 36 14 50
West Leg West Leg
Approach 11 0 11 54 65 Approach 19 0 19 19 38
Departure 15 0 15 15 30 Departure 17 0 17 53 70
Total 26 0 26 69 95 Total 36 0 36 72 108
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 26 0 26 69 95 Approach 36 0 36 72 108
Departure 26 0 26 69 95 Departure 36 0 36 72 108
Total 52 0 52 138 190 Total 72 0 72 144 216
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
6 Project Driveway 2/Huntsman Avenue 6 Project Driveway 2/Huntsman Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 6 6 SBL 0 0 0 25 25
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 0 0 0 3 3 SBR 0 0 0 10 10
EBL 0 0 0 10 10 EBL 0 0 0 4 4
EBT 11 0 11 0 11 EBT 19 0 19 0 19
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 15 0 15 0 15 WBT 17 0 17 0 17
WBR 0 0 0 25 25 WBR 0 0 0 9 9
North Leg North Leg
Approach 00099 Approach 0 0 0 35 35
Departure 0 0 0 35 35 Departure 0 0 0 13 13
Total 0 0 0 44 44 Total 0 0 0 48 48
South Leg South Leg
Approach 00000 Approach 00000
Departure 00000 Departure 00000
Total 00000 Total 00000
East Leg East Leg
Approach 15 0 15 25 40 Approach 17 0 17 9 26
Departure 11 0 11 6 17 Departure 19 0 19 25 44
Total 26 0 26 31 57 Total 36 0 36 34 70
West Leg West Leg
Approach 11 0 11 10 21 Approach 19 0 19 4 23
Departure 15 0 15 3 18 Departure 17 0 17 10 27
Total 26 0 26 13 39 Total 36 0 36 14 50
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 26 0 26 44 70 Approach 36 0 36 48 84
Departure 26 0 26 44 70 Departure 36 0 36 48 84
Total 52 0 52 88 140 Total 72 0 72 96 168
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
7 Apple Avenue/Huntsman Avenue 7 Apple Avenue/Huntsman Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 5 0 5 0 5 SBL 9 0 9 0 9
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 5 0 5 0 5 SBR 1 0 1 0 1
EBL 28 0 28 0 28 EBL 4 0 4 0 4
EBT 6 0 6 44 50 EBT 10 0 10 15 25
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 5 0 5 12 17 WBT 6 0 6 43 49
WBR 10 0 10 0 10 WBR 11 0 11 0 11
North Leg North Leg
Approach 10 0 10 0 10 Approach 10 0 10 0 10
Departure 38 0 38 0 38 Departure 15 0 15 0 15
Total 48 0 48 0 48 Total 25 0 25 0 25
South Leg South Leg
Approach 00000 Approach 00000
Departure 00000 Departure 00000
Total 00000 Total 00000
East Leg East Leg
Approach 15 0 15 12 27 Approach 17 0 17 43 60
Departure 11 0 11 44 55 Departure 19 0 19 15 34
Total 26 0 26 56 82 Total 36 0 36 58 94
West Leg West Leg
Approach 34 0 34 44 78 Approach 14 0 14 15 29
Departure 10 0 10 12 22 Departure 7 0 7 43 50
Total 44 0 44 56 100 Total 21 0 21 58 79
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 59 0 59 56 115 Approach 41 0 41 58 99
Departure 59 0 59 56 115 Departure 41 0 41 58 99
Total 118 0 118 112 230 Total 82 0 82 116 198
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
8 Buttonwillow Avenue/Eastside Packing Driveway 8 Buttonwillow Avenue/Eastside Packing Driveway NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 327 1 328 16 344 NBT 370 2 372 6 378
NBR 8 0 8 0 8 NBR 3 0 3 0 3
SBL 1 0 1 0 1 SBL 0 0 0 0 0
SBT 299 2 301 5 306 SBT 374 1 375 16 391
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 1 0 1 0 1 WBL 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 3 0 3 0 3 WBR 3 0 3 0 3
North Leg North Leg
Approach 300 2 302 5 307 Approach 374 1 375 16 391
Departure 330 1 331 16 347 Departure 373 2 375 6 381
Total 630 3 633 21 654 Total 747 3 750 22 772
South Leg South Leg
Approach 335 1 336 16 352 Approach 373 2 375 6 381
Departure 300 2 302 5 307 Departure 374 1 375 16 391
Total 635 3 638 21 659 Total 747 3 750 22 772
East Leg East Leg
Approach 40404 Approach 30303
Departure 90909 Departure 30303
Total 13 0 13 0 13 Total 60606
West Leg West Leg
Approach 00000 Approach 00000
Departure 00000 Departure 00000
Total 00000 Total 00000
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 639 3 642 21 663 Approach 750 3 753 22 775
Departure 639 3 642 21 663 Departure 750 3 753 22 775
Total 1,278 6 1,284 42 1,326 Total 1,500 6 1,506 44 1,550 P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
9 Buttonwillow Avenue/Floral Avenue 9 Buttonwillow Avenue/Floral Avenue NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 292 0 292 16 308 NBT 351 1 352 6 358
NBR 17 0 17 0 17 NBR 32 0 32 0 32
SBL 18 1 19 0 19 SBL 27 1 28 0 28
SBT 282 1 283 5 288 SBT 347 1 348 16 364
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 37 0 37 0 37 WBL 15 0 15 0 15
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 43 0 43 0 43 WBR 22 1 23 0 23
North Leg North Leg
Approach 300 2 302 5 307 Approach 374 2 376 16 392
Departure 335 0 335 16 351 Departure 373 2 375 6 381
Total 635 2 637 21 658 Total 747 4 751 22 773
South Leg South Leg
Approach 309 0 309 16 325 Approach 383 1 384 6 390
Departure 319 1 320 5 325 Departure 362 1 363 16 379
Total 628 1 629 21 650 Total 745 2 747 22 769
East Leg East Leg
Approach 80 0 80 0 80 Approach 37 1 38 0 38
Departure 35 1 36 0 36 Departure 59 1 60 0 60
Total 115 1 116 0 116 Total 96 2 98 0 98
West Leg West Leg
Approach 00000 Approach 00000
Departure 00000 Departure 00000
Total 00000 Total 00000
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 689 2 691 21 712 Approach 794 4 798 22 820
Departure 689 2 691 21 712 Departure 794 4 798 22 820
Total 1,378 4 1,382 42 1,424 Total 1,588 8 1,596 44 1,640 P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term Existing Cumulative Near Term Net Near Term (2023) Project Without Project Plus (2023) Project Without Project Plus PCE Trips Project Trips Project PCE Trips Project Trips Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Table C‐2 ‐ Near Term (2026) Peak Hour Volume Summary
10 Englehart Avenue/Floral Avenue 10 Englehart Avenue/Floral Avenue NBL 12 0 12 0 12 NBL 3 0 3 0 3
NBT 94 0 94 12 106 NBT 92 1 93 4 97
NBR 8 0 8 0 8 NBR 5 0 5 0 5
SBL 4 1 5 0 5 SBL 12 1 13 0 13
SBT 63 1 64 3 67 SBT 125 1 126 12 138
SBR 8 0 8 0 8 SBR 4 0 4 0 4
EBL 9 0 9 0 9 EBL 3 0 3 0 3
EBT 12 0 12 0 12 EBT 38 0 38 0 38
EBR 3 0 3 0 3 EBR 9 0 9 0 9
WBL 3 0 3 0 3 WBL 5 0 5 0 5
WBT 45 0 45 0 45 WBT 16 0 16 0 16
WBR 16 0 16 0 16 WBR 17 1 18 0 18
North Leg North Leg
Approach 75 2 77 3 80 Approach 141 2 143 12 155
Departure 119 0 119 12 131 Departure 112 2 114 4 118
Total 194 2 196 15 211 Total 253 4 257 16 273
South Leg South Leg
Approach 114 0 114 12 126 Approach 100 1 101 4 105
Departure 69 1 70 3 73 Departure 139 1 140 12 152
Total 183 1 184 15 199 Total 239 2 241 16 257
East Leg East Leg
Approach 64 0 64 0 64 Approach 38 1 39 0 39
Departure 24 1 25 0 25 Departure 55 1 56 0 56
Total 88 1 89 0 89 Total 93 2 95 0 95
West Leg West Leg
Approach 24 0 24 0 24 Approach 50 0 50 0 50
Departure 65 0 65 0 65 Departure 23 0 23 0 23
Total 89 0 89 0 89 Total 73 0 73 0 73
Total Approaches Total Approaches
Approach 277 2 279 15 294 Approach 329 4 333 16 349
Departure 277 2 279 15 294 Departure 329 4 333 16 349
Total 554 4 558 30 588 Total 658 8 666 32 698
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2026 Near Term TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
1 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
NBL 170 3 173 130 13 143
NBT 160 7 167 256 25 281
NBR 49 0 49 56 0 56
SBL 67 0 67 116 0 116
SBT 216 25 241 200 9 209
SBR 157 0 157 132 0 132
EBL 83 0 83 145 0 145
EBT 279 0 279 330 0 330
EBR 152 14 166 230 4 234
WBL 72 0 72 60 0 60
WBT 422 0 422 234 0 234
WBR 97 0 97 92 0 92
North Leg
Approach 440 25 465 448 9 457
Departure 340 7 347 493 25 518
Total 780 32 812 941 34 975
South Leg
Approach 379 10 389 442 38 480
Departure 440 39 479 490 13 503
Total 819 49 868 932 51 983
East Leg
Approach 591 0 591 386 0 386
Departure 395 0 395 502 0 502
Total 986 0 986 888 0 888
West Leg
Approach 514 14 528 705 4 709
Departure 749 3 752 496 13 509
Total 1,263 17 1,280 1,201 17 1,218
Total Approaches
Approach 1,924 49 1,973 1,981 51 2,032
Departure 1,924 49 1,973 1,981 51 2,032
Total 3,848 98 3,946 3,962 102 4,064
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2 Buttonwillow Avenue/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 344 0 344 387 0 387
NBR 26 16 42 21 6 27
SBL 111 39 150 62 13 75
SBT 316 0 316 433 0 433
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 21 5 26 28 16 44
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 48 10 58 62 38 100
North Leg
Approach 427 39 466 495 13 508
Departure 392 10 402 449 38 487
Total 819 49 868 944 51 995
South Leg
Approach 370 16 386 408 6 414
Departure 337 5 342 461 16 477
Total 707 21 728 869 22 891
East Leg
Approach 69 15 84 90 54 144
Departure 137 55 192 83 19 102
Total 206 70 276 173 73 246
West Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approaches
Approach 866 70 936 993 73 1,066
Departure 866 70 936 993 73 1,066
Total 1,732 140 1,872 1,986 146 2,132
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3 Englehart Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
NBL 47 0 47 57 0 57
NBT 62 2 64 65 6 71
NBR 13 2 15 8 6 14
SBL 6 0 6 9 0 9
SBT 65 7 72 77 2 79
SBR 45 0 45 20 0 20
EBL 18 0 18 30 0 30
EBT 231 0 231 328 0 328
EBR 45 0 45 54 0 54
WBL 24 7 31 13 2 15
WBT 300 0 300 244 0 244
WBR 2 0 2 6 0 6
North Leg
Approach 116 7 123 106 2 108
Departure 82 2 84 101 6 107
Total 198 9 207 207 8 215
South Leg
Approach 122 4 126 130 12 142
Departure 134 14 148 144 4 148
Total 256 18 274 274 16 290
East Leg
Approach 326 7 333 263 2 265
Departure 250 2 252 345 6 351
Total 576 9 585 608 8 616
West Leg
Approach 294 0 294 412 0 412
Departure 392 0 392 321 0 321
Total 686 0 686 733 0 733
Total Approaches
Approach 858 18 876 911 16 927
Departure 858 18 876 911 16 927
Total 1,716 36 1,752 1,822 32 1,854
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4 Englehart Avenue/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 8 12 20 7 4 11
NBT 116 0 116 117 0 117
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBT 90 0 90 137 0 137
SBR 51 12 63 7 4 11
EBL 5 3 8 35 12 47
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 1 3 4 11 12 23
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Leg
Approach 141 12 153 144 4 148
Departure 121 3 124 152 12 164
Total 262 15 277 296 16 312
South Leg
Approach 124 12 136 124 4 128
Departure 91 3 94 148 12 160
Total 215 15 230 272 16 288
East Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Leg
Approach 6 6 12 46 24 70
Departure 59 24 83 14 8 22
Total 65 30 95 60 32 92
Total Approaches
Approach 271 30 301 314 32 346
Departure 271 30 301 314 32 346
Total 542 60 602 628 64 692
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
5 Project Driveway 1/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 0 12 12 0 43 43
EBL 0 44 44 0 15 15
EBT 12 10 22 48 4 52
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 53 3 56 18 10 28
WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Leg
Approach 0 12 12 0 43 43
Departure 0 44 44 0 15 15
Total 0 56 56 0 58 58
South Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Leg
Approach 53 3 56 18 10 28
Departure 12 10 22 48 4 52
Total 65 13 78 66 14 80
West Leg
Approach 12 54 66 48 19 67
Departure 53 15 68 18 53 71
Total 65 69 134 66 72 138
Total Approaches
Approach 65 69 134 66 72 138
Departure 65 69 134 66 72 138
Total 130 138 268 132 144 276
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
6 Project Driveway 2/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 6 6 0 25 25
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 0 3 3 0 10 10
EBL 0 10 10 0 4 4
EBT 12 0 12 48 0 48
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 53 0 53 18 0 18
WBR 0 25 25 0 9 9
North Leg
Approach 0 9 9 0 35 35
Departure 0 35 35 0 13 13
Total 0 44 44 0 48 48
South Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Leg
Approach 53 25 78 18 9 27
Departure 12 6 18 48 25 73
Total 65 31 96 66 34 100
West Leg
Approach 12 10 22 48 4 52
Departure 53 3 56 18 10 28
Total 65 13 78 66 14 80
Total Approaches
Approach 65 44 109 66 48 114
Departure 65 44 109 66 48 114
Total 130 88 218 132 96 228
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
7 Apple Avenue/Huntsman Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 5 0 5 10 0 10
SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBR 9 0 9 1 0 1
EBL 29 0 29 5 0 5
EBT 6 44 50 38 15 53
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBT 40 12 52 6 43 49
WBR 14 0 14 12 0 12
North Leg
Approach 14 0 14 11 0 11
Departure 43 0 43 17 0 17
Total 57 0 57 28 0 28
South Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
East Leg
Approach 54 12 66 18 43 61
Departure 11 44 55 48 15 63
Total 65 56 121 66 58 124
West Leg
Approach 35 44 79 43 15 58
Departure 49 12 61 7 43 50
Total 84 56 140 50 58 108
Total Approaches
Approach 103 56 159 72 58 130
Departure 103 56 159 72 58 130
Total 206 112 318 144 116 260
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
8 Buttonwillow Avenue/Eastside Packing Driveway
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 341 16 357 407 6 413
NBR 8 0 8 4 0 4
SBL 1 0 1 0 0 0
SBT 310 5 315 388 16 404
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 1 0 1 0 0 0
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 3 0 3 3 0 3
North Leg
Approach 311 5 316 388 16 404
Departure 344 16 360 410 6 416
Total 655 21 676 798 22 820
South Leg
Approach 349 16 365 411 6 417
Departure 311 5 316 388 16 404
Total 660 21 681 799 22 821
East Leg
Approach 4 0 4 3 0 3
Departure 9 0 9 4 0 4
Total 13 0 13 7 0 7
West Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approaches
Approach 664 21 685 802 22 824
Departure 664 21 685 802 22 824
Total 1,328 42 1,370 1,604 44 1,648
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
9 Buttonwillow Avenue/Floral Avenue
NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBT 301 16 317 379 6 385
NBR 18 0 18 34 0 34
SBL 20 0 20 35 0 35
SBT 289 5 294 352 16 368
SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 39 0 39 16 0 16
WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBR 49 0 49 29 0 29
North Leg
Approach 309 5 314 387 16 403
Departure 350 16 366 408 6 414
Total 659 21 680 795 22 817
South Leg
Approach 319 16 335 413 6 419
Departure 328 5 333 368 16 384
Total 647 21 668 781 22 803
East Leg
Approach 88 0 88 45 0 45
Departure 38 0 38 69 0 69
Total 126 0 126 114 0 114
West Leg
Approach 0 0 0 0 0 0
Departure 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approaches
Approach 716 21 737 845 22 867
Departure 716 21 737 845 22 867
Total 1,432 42 1,474 1,690 44 1,734
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023) Build‐Out Net Build‐Out Build‐Out Net Build‐Out
Without Project With Without Project With
Project Trips Project Project Trips Project
Table C‐3 ‐Cumulative (2046) Peak Hour Volume Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
10 Englehart Avenue/Floral Avenue
NBL 28 0 28 10 0 10
NBT 99 12 111 98 4 102
NBR 8 0 8 5 0 5
SBL 5 0 5 14 0 14
SBT 67 3 70 132 12 144
SBR 8 0 8 4 0 4
EBL 9 0 9 3 0 3
EBT 13 0 13 40 0 40
EBR 6 0 6 34 0 34
WBL 3 0 3 5 0 5
WBT 47 0 47 17 0 17
WBR 17 0 17 19 0 19
North Leg
Approach 80 3 83 150 12 162
Departure 125 12 137 120 4 124
Total 205 15 220 270 16 286
South Leg
Approach 135 12 147 113 4 117
Departure 76 3 79 171 12 183
Total 211 15 226 284 16 300
East Leg
Approach 67 0 67 41 0 41
Departure 26 0 26 59 0 59
Total 93 0 93 100 0 100
West Leg
Approach 28 0 28 77 0 77
Departure 83 0 83 31 0 31
Total 111 0 111 108 0 108
Total Approaches
Approach 310 15 325 381 16 397
Departure 310 15 325 381 16 397
Total 620 30 650 762 32 794
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\model.xlsx\2046 TM (12/21/2023)

T RAFFIC I MPACT S TUDY
DECEMBER 2023

E AST H UNTSMAN AVENUE INDUSTRIAL P ARK P ROJECT

REEDLEY , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Report\Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project TIS.docx (12/21/23)

APPENDIX D

LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Existing AM without Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 28.8 28.8 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1198.5 1438.2 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 41.7 50.0 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.72
Travel Time Index 6.88
Congestion Coefficient 1.39
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 1911 2293 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 1911
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 4.8
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 4.8
Degree of Saturation 0.713
Practical Spare Capacity % 19.1
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2679
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 7.90 9.48 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 14.9 14.9 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 18.9
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 32.7 32.7 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 14.9
Idling Time (Average) sec 8.1
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS B
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 9.0
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 230.0
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.06
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 1488 1785 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.78 0.78
Proportion Queued 0.78 0.78
Performance Index 99.8 99.8
Cost (Total) $/h 1071.95 1071.95 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 57.2
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 514.3
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.045
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.60
NOx (Total) kg/h 1.103
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Existing PM without Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 28.8 28.8 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1182.8 1419.4 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 41.0 49.2 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.72
Travel Time Index 6.89
Congestion Coefficient 1.39
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 1886 2264 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 1886
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 3.6
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 3.6
Degree of Saturation 0.779
Practical Spare Capacity % 9.1
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2421
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 7.69 9.23 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 14.7 14.7 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 20.1
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 30.3 30.3 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 14.7
Idling Time (Average) sec 7.7
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS B
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 13.1
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 338.8
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.09
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 1499 1799 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.79 0.79
Proportion Queued 0.79 0.79
Performance Index 100.9 100.9
Cost (Total) $/h 1038.77 1038.77 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 54.0
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 484.7
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.043
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.58
NOx (Total) kg/h 0.858
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Existing AM Plus Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 28.4 28.4 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1231.8 1478.1 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 43.4 52.1 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.71
Travel Time Index 6.77
Congestion Coefficient 1.41
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 1964 2357 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 1964
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 4.9
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 4.9
Degree of Saturation 0.722
Practical Spare Capacity % 17.7
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2720
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 8.73 10.48 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 16.0 16.0 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 21.2
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 35.5 35.5 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 16.0
Idling Time (Average) sec 8.7
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 9.2
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 234.8
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.06
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 1624 1948 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.83 0.83
Proportion Queued 0.80 0.80
Performance Index 107.3 107.3
Cost (Total) $/h 1115.64 1115.64 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 59.4
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 534.3
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.047
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.62
NOx (Total) kg/h 1.163
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Existing PM Plus Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 28.5 28.5 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1216.6 1460.0 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 42.7 51.3 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.71
Travel Time Index 6.80
Congestion Coefficient 1.41
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 1940 2328 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 1940
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 3.6
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 3.6
Degree of Saturation 0.793
Practical Spare Capacity % 7.2
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2447
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 8.44 10.12 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 15.7 15.7 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 21.2
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 31.5 31.5 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 15.7
Idling Time (Average) sec 8.2
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 13.7
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 354.1
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.09
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 1633 1959 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.84 0.84
Proportion Queued 0.82 0.82
Performance Index 108.0 108.0
Cost (Total) $/h 1079.22 1079.22 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 55.9
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 501.7
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.045
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.60
NOx (Total) kg/h 0.888
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Near Term AM without Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 28.3 28.3 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1229.7 1475.7 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 43.4 52.1 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.71
Travel Time Index 6.76
Congestion Coefficient 1.41
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 1961 2353 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 1961
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 4.8
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 4.8
Degree of Saturation 0.737
Practical Spare Capacity % 15.4
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2662
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 8.75 10.50 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 16.1 16.1 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 21.4
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 35.9 35.9 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 16.1
Idling Time (Average) sec 8.7
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 10.0
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 254.2
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.06
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 1619 1942 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.83 0.83
Proportion Queued 0.80 0.80
Performance Index 107.4 107.4
Cost (Total) $/h 1112.61 1112.61 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 59.0
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 531.0
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.047
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.62
NOx (Total) kg/h 1.134
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Near Term PM without Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 28.5 28.5 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1213.8 1456.5 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 42.6 51.2 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.71
Travel Time Index 6.80
Congestion Coefficient 1.41
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 1936 2323 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 1936
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 3.6
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 3.6
Degree of Saturation 0.803
Practical Spare Capacity % 5.9
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2412
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 8.42 10.10 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 15.7 15.7 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 21.9
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 32.4 32.4 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 15.7
Idling Time (Average) sec 8.2
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 14.2
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 368.4
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.09
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 1624 1949 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.84 0.84
Proportion Queued 0.82 0.82
Performance Index 108.0 108.0
Cost (Total) $/h 1076.19 1076.19 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 55.7
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 499.9
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.045
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.60
NOx (Total) kg/h 0.880
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Near Term AM Plus Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 27.9 27.9 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1263.0 1515.6 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 45.3 54.4 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.70
Travel Time Index 6.63
Congestion Coefficient 1.43
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 2014 2417 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 2014
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 4.9
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 4.9
Degree of Saturation 0.746
Practical Spare Capacity % 14.0
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2701
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 9.73 11.68 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 17.4 17.4 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 24.4
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 39.3 39.3 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 17.4
Idling Time (Average) sec 9.5
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 10.2
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 259.7
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.07
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 1766 2119 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.88 0.88
Proportion Queued 0.83 0.83
Performance Index 115.7 115.7
Cost (Total) $/h 1159.16 1159.16 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 61.3
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 551.6
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.049
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.64
NOx (Total) kg/h 1.195
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Near Term PM Plus Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 28.1 28.1 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1247.6 1497.1 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 44.4 53.3 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.70
Travel Time Index 6.69
Congestion Coefficient 1.42
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 1989 2387 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 1989
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 3.6
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 3.6
Degree of Saturation 0.817
Practical Spare Capacity % 4.1
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2437
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 9.26 11.11 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 16.8 16.8 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 23.2
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 33.9 33.9 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 16.8
Idling Time (Average) sec 8.7
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 14.9
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 385.7
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.10
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 1766 2119 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.89 0.89
Proportion Queued 0.84 0.84
Performance Index 115.6 115.6
Cost (Total) $/h 1118.39 1118.39 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 57.7
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 517.2
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.047
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.61
NOx (Total) kg/h 0.910
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Cumulative AM without Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 27.0 27.0 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1311.5 1573.8 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 48.7 58.4 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.67
Travel Time Index 6.38
Congestion Coefficient 1.48
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 2091 2510 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 2091
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 4.9
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 4.9
Degree of Saturation 0.808
Practical Spare Capacity % 5.2
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2588
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 11.71 14.05 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 20.2 20.2 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 30.1
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 46.1 46.1 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 20.2
Idling Time (Average) sec 11.2
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 11.7
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 299.8
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.08
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 2020 2424 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 0.97 0.97
Proportion Queued 0.87 0.87
Performance Index 131.0 131.0
Cost (Total) $/h 1236.71 1236.71 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 64.7
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 582.3
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.052
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.67
NOx (Total) kg/h 1.265
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Cumulative PM without Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 27.0 27.0 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1307.7 1569.3 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 48.4 58.0 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.68
Travel Time Index 6.40
Congestion Coefficient 1.48
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 2085 2502 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 2085
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 3.6
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 3.6
Degree of Saturation 0.871
Practical Spare Capacity % -2.4
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2395
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 11.47 13.77 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 19.8 19.8 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 28.4
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 39.6 39.6 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 19.8
Idling Time (Average) sec 10.5
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 18.9
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 490.9
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.12
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 2095 2514 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 1.00 1.00
Proportion Queued 0.87 0.87
Performance Index 135.7 135.7
Cost (Total) $/h 1208.10 1208.10 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 61.5
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 552.0
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.050
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.65
NOx (Total) kg/h 0.976
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Cumulative AM Plus Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 26.3 26.3 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1344.8 1613.7 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 51.2 61.5 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.66
Travel Time Index 6.18
Congestion Coefficient 1.52
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 2145 2573 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 2145
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 5.0
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 5.0
Degree of Saturation 0.857
Practical Spare Capacity % -0.8
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2502
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 13.35 16.02 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 22.4 22.4 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 35.6
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 52.1 52.1 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 22.4
Idling Time (Average) sec 12.6
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 12.0
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 306.9
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.08
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 2214 2656 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 1.03 1.03
Proportion Queued 0.89 0.89
Performance Index 142.7 142.7
Cost (Total) $/h 1295.65 1295.65 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 67.3
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 605.7
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.054
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.70
NOx (Total) kg/h 1.331
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Cumulative PM Plus Project (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.3.210 Buttonwillow Avenue/Dinuba Avenue
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Intersection Performance - Hourly Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Travel Speed (Average) mph 26.5 26.5 mph
Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/h 1341.5 1609.8 pers-mi/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 50.7 60.8 pers-h/h
Desired Speed mph 40.0
Speed Efficiency 0.66
Travel Time Index 6.24
Congestion Coefficient 1.51
Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 2139 2567 pers/h
Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 2139
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 3.6
Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 3.6
Degree of Saturation 0.885
Practical Spare Capacity % -4.0
Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 2416
Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 12.82 15.38 pers-h/h
Control Delay (Average) sec 21.6 21.6 sec
Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 30.4
Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 41.8 41.8 sec
Geometric Delay (Average) sec 0.0
Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 21.6
Idling Time (Average) sec 11.6
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C
95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 19.9
95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) ft 517.0
Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.13
Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 2277 2733 pers/h
Effective Stop Rate 1.06 1.06
Proportion Queued 0.88 0.88
Performance Index 146.2 146.2
Cost (Total) $/h 1259.52 1259.52 $/h
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/h 63.7
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 571.1
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.052
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 0.67
NOx (Total) kg/h 1.008
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements.

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects.

In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

Site Model Variability Index (Average value of largest changes in Lane Degrees of Saturation from the third to the last Main (Timing-Capacity) Iterations): 0.0 % Number of Iterations: 3 (Maximum: 10)
Largest change in Lane Degrees of Saturation for the last three Flow-Capacity Iterations: 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Intersection Performance - Annual Values
Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons
Demand Flows (Total) veh/y 1,026,695 1,232,034 pers/y
Delay (Total) veh-h/y 6,151 7,382 pers-h/y
Effective Stops (Total) veh/y 1,093,029 1,311,634 pers/y Travel Distance (Total) veh-mi/y 643,938 772,725 pers-mi/y Travel Time (Total) veh-h/y 24,321 29,185 pers-h/y
Cost (Total) $/y 604,571 604,571 $/y
Fuel Consumption (Total) gal/y 30,557
Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/y 274,137
Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/y 25
Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/y 323
NOx (Total) kg/y 484
1 Hours per Year: 480 (Site)
SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2023 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: LSAASSOCIATES, INC | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: Thursday, December 21, 2023 1:01:25 PM Project: P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Sidra\Intersection1.sip9 HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Existing AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 10 327 4 24 299
Future Vol, veh/h 3 10 327 4 24 299
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 50 0 4 0 60 3
Mvmt Flow 3 11 355 4 26 325
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 735 358 0 0 360 0
Stage 1 358 -----
Stage 2 377 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.2 - - 4.7 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.9 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 3.3 - - 2.74 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 325 691 - - 939 -
Stage 1 613 -----
Stage 2 600 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 314 691 - - 939 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 314 -----
Stage 1 613 -----
Stage 2 579 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v11.83 0 0.66

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 541 939 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.026 0.028 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 11.8 8.9 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Existing AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 228 36 22 291 2 44 59 12 4 38 28
Future Vol, veh/h 16 228 36 22 291 2 44 59 12 4 38 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 3 29 2 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 17 248 39 24 316 2 48 64 13 4 41 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 318 0 0 287 0 0 687 668 267 680 687 317 Stage 1 - - - - - - 302 302 - 365 365 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 385 366 - 315 322 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.39 - - 7.15 6.5 6.29 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.461 - - 3.545 4 3.381 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1253 - - 1135 - - 357 381 755 368 372 728 Stage 1 - - - - - - 701 668 - 658 627 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 632 626 - 701 655 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1253 - - 1135 - - 291 365 755 288 357 728 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 291 365 - 288 357 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 689 657 - 647 611 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 550 610 - 611 644 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.45 0.58 20.88 14.87

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 350 1253 - - 1135 - - 440
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.357 0.014 - - 0.021 - - 0.173
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 20.9 7.9 0 - 8.2 0 - 14.9
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.6
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Existing AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 1 8 109 84 12
Future Vol, veh/h 5 1 8 109 84 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 3 1 71
Mvmt Flow 5 1 9 118 91 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 234 98 104 0 - 0
Stage 1 98 -----
Stage 2 136 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 759 964 1500 - - -
Stage 1 931 -----
Stage 2 896 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 754 964 1500 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 754 -----
Stage 1 925 -----
Stage 2 896 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.64 0.51 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1500 - 783 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.008 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0 9.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Existing AM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 6 5 10 5 5
Future Vol, veh/h 28 6 5 10 5 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 87 0 0 100 0 67
Mvmt Flow 30 7 5 11 5 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 16 0 - 0 78 11
Stage 1 - - - - 11 -
Stage 2 - - - - 67 -
Critical Hdwy 4.97 - - - 6.4 6.87
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.983 - - - 3.5 3.903
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1188 - - - 929 909
Stage 1 - - - - 1017 -
Stage 2 - - - - 960 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1188 - - - 906 909
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 906 -
Stage 1 - - - - 991 -
Stage 2 - - - - 960 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 6.68 0 9.02

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1188 - - - 907
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Existing AM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 3 327 8 1 299
Future Vol, veh/h 1 3 327 8 1 299
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 4 50 0 5
Mvmt Flow 1 3 355 9 1 325
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 687 360 0 0 364 0
Stage 1 360 -----
Stage 2 327 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 416 511 - - 1206 -
Stage 1 711 -----
Stage 2 735 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 415 511 - - 1206 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 415 -----
Stage 1 711 -----
Stage 2 734 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.52 0 0.03

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 483 1206 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.5 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Existing AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 43 292 17 18 282
Future Vol, veh/h 37 43 292 17 18 282
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 21 11 3 7 6 3
Mvmt Flow 40 47 317 18 20 307
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 672 327 0 0 336 0
Stage 1 327 -----
Stage 2 346 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.61 6.31 - - 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.61 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.61 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.689 3.399 - - 2.254 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 393 694 - - 1201 -
Stage 1 690 -----
Stage 2 676 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 385 694 - - 1201 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 385 -----
Stage 1 690 -----
Stage 2 663 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.58 0 0.48

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 506 1201 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.172 0.016 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.6 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Existing AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 12 3 3 45 16 12 94 8 4 63 8
Future Vol, veh/h 9 12 3 3 45 16 12 94 8 4 63 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 0 0 0 13 15 9 1 17 0 2 0
Mvmt Flow 10 13 3 3 49 17 13 102 9 4 68 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 234 218 73 216 218 107 77 0 0 111 0 0 Stage 1 82 82 - 133 133 -------
Stage 2 153 137 - 84 86 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.5 - 7.1 6.63 - 4.19 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4 - 3.5 4.117 - 2.281 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 698 683 0 744 661 0 1478 - - 1492 - - Stage 1 900 831 0 876 766 0 ------
Stage 2 824 787 0 929 803 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 638 675 - 721 653 - 1478 - - 1492 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 638 675 - 721 653 -------
Stage 1 892 829 - 867 759 -------
Stage 2 764 780 - 912 800 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.78 0.4

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1478 ---- 1492 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - - 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Existing PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 5 372 3 11 411
Future Vol, veh/h 2 5 372 3 11 411
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 6 50 10 6
Mvmt Flow 2 5 388 3 11 428
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 840 389 0 0 391 0
Stage 1 389 -----
Stage 2 451 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.2 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.29 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 338 664 - - 1126 -
Stage 1 689 -----
Stage 2 646 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 334 664 - - 1126 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 334 -----
Stage 1 689 -----
Stage 2 637 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.06 0 0.21

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 517 1126 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.014 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.1 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Existing PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 311 49 12 233 5 51 48 8 9 73 19
Future Vol, veh/h 16 311 49 12 233 5 51 48 8 9 73 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 17 338 53 13 253 5 55 52 9 10 79 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 259 0 0 391 0 0 718 684 365 681 708 256 Stage 1 - - - - - - 399 399 - 282 282 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 319 285 - 399 426 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.52 6.2 7.1 6.51 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4.018 3.3 3.5 4.009 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1277 - - 1178 - - 347 371 685 367 361 788 Stage 1 - - - - - - 631 602 - 729 680 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 697 676 - 631 588 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1277 - - 1178 - - 255 360 685 302 350 788 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 255 360 - 302 350 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 620 591 - 716 671 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 590 667 - 558 577 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.33 0.39 23.43 18.06

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 310 1277 - - 1178 - - 385
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.375 0.014 - - 0.011 - - 0.285
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 23.4 7.9 0 - 8.1 0 - 18.1
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 0 - - 0 - - 1.2
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Existing PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 7 108 128 4
Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 7 108 128 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 17 3 1 0
Mvmt Flow 5 12 7 115 136 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 268 138 140 0 - 0
Stage 1 138 -----
Stage 2 130 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.27 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.353 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 725 915 1356 - - -
Stage 1 893 -----
Stage 2 901 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 721 915 1356 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 721 -----
Stage 1 888 -----
Stage 2 901 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.35 0.47 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1356 - 844 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.02 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 9.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Existing PM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 10 6 11 9 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 10 6 11 9 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 38 0 0
Mvmt Flow 4 11 7 12 10 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 18 0 - 0 32 13
Stage 1 - - - - 13 -
Stage 2 - - - - 20 -
Critical Hdwy 5.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - - 987 1074
Stage 1 - - - - 1016 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1008 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - - 983 1074
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 983 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1012 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1008 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 2.33 0 8.67

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1140 - - - 991
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.011
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Existing PM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 370 3 0 374
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 370 3 0 374
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 6 100 0 6
Mvmt Flow 0 3 378 3 0 382
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 761 379 0 0 381 0
Stage 1 379 -----
Stage 2 382 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 376 497 - - 1189 -
Stage 1 696 -----
Stage 2 695 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 376 497 - - 1189 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 376 -----
Stage 1 696 -----
Stage 2 695 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.29 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 497 1189 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Existing PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 22 351 32 27 347
Future Vol, veh/h 15 22 351 32 27 347
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 0 7 12 4 3
Mvmt Flow 16 23 366 33 28 361
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 800 382 0 0 399 0
Stage 1 382 -----
Stage 2 418 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.48 6.2 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 3.3 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 346 669 - - 1149 -
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 652 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 335 669 - - 1149 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 335 -----
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 632 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.21 0 0.59

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 477 1149 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.081 0.024 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.2 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Existing PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 17 3 92 5 12 125 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 17 3 92 5 12 125 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 17 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 41 10 5 17 18 3 100 5 13 136 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 279 276 138 292 276 103 140 0 0 105 0 0 Stage 1 164 164 - 109 109 -------
Stage 2 115 112 - 183 166 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.67 - 7.1 6.5 - 4.1 - - 4.2 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.153 - 3.5 4 - 2.2 - - 2.29 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 677 607 0 664 635 0 1455 - - 1437 - - Stage 1 843 735 0 901 809 0 ------
Stage 2 894 775 0 824 765 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 650 599 - 612 628 - 1455 - - 1437 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 650 599 - 612 628 -------
Stage 1 841 728 - 899 807 -------
Stage 2 873 773 - 769 757 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.22 0.64

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1455 ---- 1437 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Existing AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 20 327 20 63 299
Future Vol, veh/h 8 20 327 20 63 299
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 50 0 4 0 60 3
Mvmt Flow 9 22 355 22 68 325
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 828 366 0 0 377 0
Stage 1 366 -----
Stage 2 462 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.2 - - 4.7 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.9 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 3.3 - - 2.74 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 284 683 - - 924 -
Stage 1 607 -----
Stage 2 545 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 258 683 - - 924 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 258 -----
Stage 1 607 -----
Stage 2 496 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.29 0 1.6

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 465 924 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.066 0.074 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.3 9.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.2 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Existing AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 228 36 29 291 2 44 61 14 4 45 28
Future Vol, veh/h 16 228 36 29 291 2 44 61 14 4 45 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 3 29 2 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 17 248 39 32 316 2 48 66 15 4 49 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 318 0 0 287 0 0 706 684 267 696 702 317 Stage 1 - - - - - - 302 302 - 380 380 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 404 382 - 316 322 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.39 - - 7.15 6.5 6.29 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.461 - - 3.545 4 3.381 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1253 - - 1135 - - 347 374 755 359 365 728 Stage 1 - - - - - - 701 668 - 646 617 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 617 616 - 700 655 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1253 - - 1135 - - 273 355 755 274 347 728 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 273 355 - 274 347 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 689 657 - 635 596 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 525 596 - 606 644 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.45 0.74 22.05 15.66

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 339 1253 - - 1135 - - 421
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.382 0.014 - - 0.028 - - 0.199
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 22.1 7.9 0 - 8.3 0 - 15.7
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.7
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Existing AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 4 20 109 84 24
Future Vol, veh/h 8 4 20 109 84 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 3 1 71
Mvmt Flow 9 4 22 118 91 26
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 266 104 117 0 - 0
Stage 1 104 -----
Stage 2 162 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 727 956 1484 - - -
Stage 1 925 -----
Stage 2 872 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 716 956 1484 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 716 -----
Stage 1 910 -----
Stage 2 872 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.69 1.16 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1484 - 781 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Existing AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 11 18 0 0 12
Future Vol, veh/h 44 11 18 0 0 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 48 12 20 0 0 13
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 20 0 - 0 127 20
Stage 1 - - - - 20 -
Stage 2 - - - - 108 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1597 - - - 867 1058
Stage 1 - - - - 1003 -
Stage 2 - - - - 917 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1597 - - - 841 1058
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 841 -
Stage 1 - - - - 973 -
Stage 2 - - - - 917 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 5.86 0 8.44

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1597 - - - 1058
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Existing AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 11 15 25 6 3
Future Vol, veh/h 10 11 15 25 6 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 12 16 27 7 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 43 0 - 0 64 30
Stage 1 - - - - 30 -
Stage 2 - - - - 34 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1565 - - - 942 1045
Stage 1 - - - - 993 -
Stage 2 - - - - 989 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1565 - - - 936 1045
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 936 -
Stage 1 - - - - 986 -
Stage 2 - - - - 989 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 3.48 0 8.75

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1565 - - - 969
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.01
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Existing AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 50 17 10 5 5
Future Vol, veh/h 28 50 17 10 5 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 87 0 0 100 0 67
Mvmt Flow 30 54 18 11 5 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 29 0 - 0 139 24
Stage 1 - - - - 24 -
Stage 2 - - - - 115 -
Critical Hdwy 4.97 - - - 6.4 6.87
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.983 - - - 3.5 3.903
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1173 - - - 859 893
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 915 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1173 - - - 836 893
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 836 -
Stage 1 - - - - 977 -
Stage 2 - - - - 915 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 2.93 0 9.22

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1173 - - - 863
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - - 0.013
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - - 9.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Existing AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 3 343 8 1 304
Future Vol, veh/h 1 3 343 8 1 304
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 4 50 0 5
Mvmt Flow 1 3 373 9 1 330
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 710 377 0 0 382 0
Stage 1 377 -----
Stage 2 333 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 403 498 - - 1188 -
Stage 1 698 -----
Stage 2 731 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 403 498 - - 1188 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 403 -----
Stage 1 698 -----
Stage 2 730 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.72 0 0.03

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 470 1188 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.7 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Existing AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 43 308 17 18 287
Future Vol, veh/h 37 43 308 17 18 287
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 21 11 3 7 6 3
Mvmt Flow 40 47 335 18 20 312
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 695 344 0 0 353 0
Stage 1 344 -----
Stage 2 351 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.61 6.31 - - 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.61 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.61 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.689 3.399 - - 2.254 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 381 679 - - 1184 -
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 672 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 373 679 - - 1184 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 373 -----
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 659 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.88 0 0.48

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 492 1184 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.177 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.9 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Existing AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 12 3 3 45 16 12 106 8 4 66 8
Future Vol, veh/h 9 12 3 3 45 16 12 106 8 4 66 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 0 0 0 13 15 9 1 17 0 2 0
Mvmt Flow 10 13 3 3 49 17 13 115 9 4 72 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 251 235 76 233 235 120 80 0 0 124 0 0 Stage 1 85 85 - 146 146 -------
Stage 2 166 150 - 87 89 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.5 - 7.1 6.63 - 4.19 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4 - 3.5 4.117 - 2.281 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 681 669 0 726 647 0 1474 - - 1475 - - Stage 1 897 828 0 862 756 0 ------
Stage 2 811 777 0 926 800 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 621 661 - 703 639 - 1474 - - 1475 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 621 661 - 703 639 -------
Stage 1 888 826 - 854 749 -------
Stage 2 751 770 - 908 798 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.71 0.38

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1474 ---- 1475 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - - 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Existing PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 43 372 9 24 411
Future Vol, veh/h 18 43 372 9 24 411
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 6 50 10 6
Mvmt Flow 19 45 388 9 25 428
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 870 392 0 0 397 0
Stage 1 392 -----
Stage 2 478 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.2 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.29 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 324 661 - - 1120 -
Stage 1 687 -----
Stage 2 628 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 315 661 - - 1120 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 315 -----
Stage 1 687 -----
Stage 2 609 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.26 0 0.46

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 499 1120 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.127 0.022 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.3 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Existing PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 311 49 14 233 5 51 54 14 9 75 19
Future Vol, veh/h 16 311 49 14 233 5 51 54 14 9 75 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 17 338 53 15 253 5 55 59 15 10 82 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 259 0 0 391 0 0 724 689 365 689 713 256 Stage 1 - - - - - - 399 399 - 286 286 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 324 289 - 402 426 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.52 6.2 7.1 6.51 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4.018 3.3 3.5 4.009 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1277 - - 1178 - - 344 369 685 363 359 788 Stage 1 - - - - - - 631 602 - 725 677 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 692 673 - 629 588 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1277 - - 1178 - - 250 357 685 288 347 788 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 250 357 - 288 347 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 620 591 - 713 666 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 583 663 - 544 577 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.33 0.45 24.02 18.41

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 316 1277 - - 1178 - - 379
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.409 0.014 - - 0.013 - - 0.295
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 24 7.9 0 - 8.1 0 - 18.4
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.9 0 - - 0 - - 1.2
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Existing PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 23 11 108 128 8
Future Vol, veh/h 17 23 11 108 128 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 17 3 1 0
Mvmt Flow 18 24 12 115 136 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 279 140 145 0 - 0
Stage 1 140 -----
Stage 2 138 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.27 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.353 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 715 913 1351 - - -
Stage 1 891 -----
Stage 2 893 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 709 913 1351 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 709 -----
Stage 1 883 -----
Stage 2 893 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.67 0.71 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1351 - 813 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.052 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Existing PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 23 17 0 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 15 23 17 0 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - -----
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 25 18 0 0 47
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 18 0 - 0 76 18
Stage 1 - - - - 18 -
Stage 2 - - - - 58 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1598 - - - 927 1060
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 965 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1598 - - - 918 1060
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 918 -
Stage 1 - - - - 994 -
Stage 2 - - - - 965 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 2.87 0 8.55

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1598 - - - 1060
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - - 0.044
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Existing PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 19 17 9 25 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 19 17 9 25 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - -----
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 21 18 10 27 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 28 0 - 0 53 23
Stage 1 - - - - 23 -
Stage 2 - - - - 29 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 956 1053
Stage 1 - - - - 999 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 953 1053
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 953 -
Stage 1 - - - - 996 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.27 0 8.82

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1585 - - - 980
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.039
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Existing PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 25 49 11 9 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 25 49 11 9 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 38 0 0
Mvmt Flow 4 27 53 12 10 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 65 0 - 0 95 59
Stage 1 - - - - 59 -
Stage 2 - - - - 36 -
Critical Hdwy 5.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1089 - - - 909 1012
Stage 1 - - - - 968 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1089 - - - 906 1012
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 906 -
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.15 0 8.98

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1089 - - - 915
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Existing PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 376 3 0 390
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 376 3 0 390
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 6 100 0 6
Mvmt Flow 0 3 384 3 0 398
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 783 385 0 0 387 0
Stage 1 385 -----
Stage 2 398 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 365 493 - - 1183 -
Stage 1 692 -----
Stage 2 683 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 365 493 - - 1183 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 365 -----
Stage 1 692 -----
Stage 2 683 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.36 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 493 1183 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Existing PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 22 357 32 27 363
Future Vol, veh/h 15 22 357 32 27 363
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 0 7 12 4 3
Mvmt Flow 16 23 372 33 28 378
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 823 389 0 0 405 0
Stage 1 389 -----
Stage 2 434 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.48 6.2 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 3.3 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 335 664 - - 1143 -
Stage 1 672 -----
Stage 2 640 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 325 664 - - 1143 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 325 -----
Stage 1 672 -----
Stage 2 620 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.41 0 0.57

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 467 1143 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.083 0.025 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.4 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Existing PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 17 3 96 5 12 137 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 17 3 96 5 12 137 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 17 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 41 10 5 17 18 3 104 5 13 149 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 297 293 151 309 293 107 153 0 0 110 0 0 Stage 1 177 177 - 114 114 -------
Stage 2 120 116 - 196 179 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.67 - 7.1 6.5 - 4.1 - - 4.2 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.153 - 3.5 4 - 2.2 - - 2.29 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 659 593 0 647 621 0 1440 - - 1432 - - Stage 1 829 725 0 896 805 0 ------
Stage 2 890 771 0 811 755 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 633 586 - 595 614 - 1440 - - 1432 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 633 586 - 595 614 -------
Stage 1 827 718 - 894 803 -------
Stage 2 868 769 - 757 747 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.22 0.59

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1440 ---- 1432 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 10 328 4 25 301
Future Vol, veh/h 3 10 328 4 25 301
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 50 0 4 0 60 3
Mvmt Flow 3 11 357 4 27 327
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 740 359 0 0 361 0
Stage 1 359 -----
Stage 2 382 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.2 - - 4.7 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.9 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 3.3 - - 2.74 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 322 690 - - 938 -
Stage 1 612 -----
Stage 2 597 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 311 690 - - 938 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 311 -----
Stage 1 612 -----
Stage 2 576 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v11.87 0 0.69

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 538 938 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.026 0.029 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 11.9 9 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 229 38 22 291 2 45 59 12 4 38 28
Future Vol, veh/h 17 229 38 22 291 2 45 59 12 4 38 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 3 29 2 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 18 249 41 24 316 2 49 64 13 4 41 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 318 0 0 290 0 0 691 673 270 683 692 317 Stage 1 - - - - - - 307 307 - 365 365 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 385 366 - 318 327 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.39 - - 7.15 6.5 6.29 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.461 - - 3.545 4 3.381 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1253 - - 1132 - - 355 379 753 366 370 728 Stage 1 - - - - - - 697 665 - 658 627 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 632 626 - 698 651 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1253 - - 1132 - - 289 363 753 285 354 728 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 289 363 - 285 354 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 685 653 - 646 611 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 550 610 - 607 640 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.47 0.58 21.18 14.95

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 347 1253 - - 1132 - - 438
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.363 0.015 - - 0.021 - - 0.174
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 21.2 7.9 0 - 8.2 0 - 14.9
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.6
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 1 8 110 86 12
Future Vol, veh/h 5 1 8 110 86 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 3 1 71
Mvmt Flow 5 1 9 120 93 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 237 100 107 0 - 0
Stage 1 100 -----
Stage 2 137 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 756 961 1497 - - -
Stage 1 929 -----
Stage 2 895 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 751 961 1497 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 751 -----
Stage 1 923 -----
Stage 2 895 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.66 0.5 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1497 - 779 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.008 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 11 15 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 11 15 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 12 16 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 16 0 - 0 28 16
Stage 1 - - - - 16 -
Stage 2 - - - - 12 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1601 - - - 987 1063
Stage 1 - - - - 1006 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1011 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1601 - - - 987 1063
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 987 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1006 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1011 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1601 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 11 15 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 11 15 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 12 16 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 16 0 - 0 28 16
Stage 1 - - - - 16 -
Stage 2 - - - - 12 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1601 - - - 987 1063
Stage 1 - - - - 1006 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1011 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1601 - - - 987 1063
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 987 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1006 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1011 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1601 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 6 5 10 5 5
Future Vol, veh/h 28 6 5 10 5 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 87 0 0 100 0 67
Mvmt Flow 30 7 5 11 5 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 16 0 - 0 78 11
Stage 1 - - - - 11 -
Stage 2 - - - - 67 -
Critical Hdwy 4.97 - - - 6.4 6.87
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.983 - - - 3.5 3.903
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1188 - - - 929 909
Stage 1 - - - - 1017 -
Stage 2 - - - - 960 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1188 - - - 906 909
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 906 -
Stage 1 - - - - 991 -
Stage 2 - - - - 960 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 6.68 0 9.02

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1188 - - - 907
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Near Term AM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 3 328 8 1 301
Future Vol, veh/h 1 3 328 8 1 301
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 4 50 0 5
Mvmt Flow 1 3 357 9 1 327
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 690 361 0 0 365 0
Stage 1 361 -----
Stage 2 329 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 414 510 - - 1204 -
Stage 1 710 -----
Stage 2 733 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 413 510 - - 1204 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 413 -----
Stage 1 710 -----
Stage 2 733 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.54 0 0.03

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 482 1204 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.5 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 43 292 17 19 283
Future Vol, veh/h 37 43 292 17 19 283
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 21 11 3 7 6 3
Mvmt Flow 40 47 317 18 21 308
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 676 327 0 0 336 0
Stage 1 327 -----
Stage 2 349 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.61 6.31 - - 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.61 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.61 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.689 3.399 - - 2.254 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 391 694 - - 1201 -
Stage 1 690 -----
Stage 2 674 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 383 694 - - 1201 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 383 -----
Stage 1 690 -----
Stage 2 660 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.61 0 0.51

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 505 1201 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.172 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.6 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 12 3 3 45 16 12 94 8 5 64 8
Future Vol, veh/h 9 12 3 3 45 16 12 94 8 5 64 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 0 0 0 13 15 9 1 17 0 2 0
Mvmt Flow 10 13 3 3 49 17 13 102 9 5 70 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 238 222 74 220 222 107 78 0 0 111 0 0 Stage 1 85 85 - 133 133 -------
Stage 2 153 137 - 87 89 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.5 - 7.1 6.63 - 4.19 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4 - 3.5 4.117 - 2.281 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 694 680 0 741 658 0 1477 - - 1492 - - Stage 1 897 828 0 876 766 0 ------
Stage 2 824 787 0 926 800 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 634 671 - 717 649 - 1477 - - 1492 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 634 671 - 717 649 -------
Stage 1 888 825 - 867 759 -------
Stage 2 764 780 - 908 797 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.79 0.48

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1477 ---- 1492 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - - 0.004 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 5 374 3 11 412
Future Vol, veh/h 2 5 374 3 11 412
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 6 50 10 6
Mvmt Flow 2 5 390 3 11 429
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 843 391 0 0 393 0
Stage 1 391 -----
Stage 2 452 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.2 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.29 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 337 662 - - 1124 -
Stage 1 688 -----
Stage 2 645 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 332 662 - - 1124 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 332 -----
Stage 1 688 -----
Stage 2 637 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.08 0 0.21

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 516 1124 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.014 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.1 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 312 51 12 234 5 54 48 8 9 73 20
Future Vol, veh/h 17 312 51 12 234 5 54 48 8 9 73 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 18 339 55 13 254 5 59 52 9 10 79 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 260 0 0 395 0 0 724 690 367 685 715 257 Stage 1 - - - - - - 404 404 - 283 283 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 320 286 - 402 432 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.52 6.2 7.1 6.51 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4.018 3.3 3.5 4.009 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1276 - - 1175 - - 344 368 683 365 358 786 Stage 1 - - - - - - 627 599 - 728 679 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 696 675 - 629 584 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1276 - - 1175 - - 251 357 683 299 346 786 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 251 357 - 299 346 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 616 588 - 715 670 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 589 666 - 555 573 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.35 0.39 24.25 18.18

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 305 1276 - - 1175 - - 383
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.393 0.014 - - 0.011 - - 0.289
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 24.3 7.9 0 - 8.1 0 - 18.2
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.8 0 - - 0 - - 1.2
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 7 111 130 4
Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 7 111 130 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 17 3 1 0
Mvmt Flow 5 12 7 118 138 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 273 140 143 0 - 0
Stage 1 140 -----
Stage 2 133 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.27 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.353 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 720 913 1353 - - -
Stage 1 891 -----
Stage 2 898 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 716 913 1353 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 716 -----
Stage 1 886 -----
Stage 2 898 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.37 0.46 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1353 - 841 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.02 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 9.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 19 17 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 17 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 21 18 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 18 0 - 0 39 18
Stage 1 - - - - 18 -
Stage 2 - - - - 21 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1598 - - - 973 1060
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1002 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1598 - - - 973 1060
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 973 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1002 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1598 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 19 17 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 17 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 21 18 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 18 0 - 0 39 18
Stage 1 - - - - 18 -
Stage 2 - - - - 21 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1598 - - - 973 1060
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1002 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1598 - - - 973 1060
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 973 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1002 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1598 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 10 6 11 9 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 10 6 11 9 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 38 0 0
Mvmt Flow 4 11 7 12 10 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 18 0 - 0 32 13
Stage 1 - - - - 13 -
Stage 2 - - - - 20 -
Critical Hdwy 5.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - - 987 1074
Stage 1 - - - - 1016 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1008 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - - 983 1074
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 983 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1012 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1008 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 2.33 0 8.67

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1140 - - - 991
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.011
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Near Term PM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 372 3 0 375
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 372 3 0 375
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 6 100 0 6
Mvmt Flow 0 3 380 3 0 383
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 764 381 0 0 383 0
Stage 1 381 -----
Stage 2 383 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 375 495 - - 1187 -
Stage 1 695 -----
Stage 2 694 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 375 495 - - 1187 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 375 -----
Stage 1 695 -----
Stage 2 694 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.31 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 495 1187 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 23 352 32 28 348
Future Vol, veh/h 15 23 352 32 28 348
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 0 7 12 4 3
Mvmt Flow 16 24 367 33 29 363
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 804 383 0 0 400 0
Stage 1 383 -----
Stage 2 421 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.48 6.2 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 3.3 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 344 669 - - 1148 -
Stage 1 676 -----
Stage 2 650 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 333 669 - - 1148 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 333 -----
Stage 1 676 -----
Stage 2 629 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 13.2 0 0.61

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 478 1148 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.083 0.025 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.2 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 18 3 93 5 13 126 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 18 3 93 5 13 126 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 17 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 41 10 5 17 20 3 101 5 14 137 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 284 280 139 296 280 104 141 0 0 107 0 0 Stage 1 167 167 - 110 110 -------
Stage 2 116 113 - 186 170 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.67 - 7.1 6.5 - 4.1 - - 4.2 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.153 - 3.5 4 - 2.2 - - 2.29 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 673 603 0 660 632 0 1454 - - 1436 - - Stage 1 839 732 0 900 808 0 ------
Stage 2 893 774 0 821 762 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 646 596 - 607 624 - 1454 - - 1436 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 646 596 - 607 624 -------
Stage 1 837 724 - 898 806 -------
Stage 2 872 772 - 766 754 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.22 0.68

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1454 ---- 1436 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - 0.01 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 20 328 20 64 301
Future Vol, veh/h 8 20 328 20 64 301
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 50 0 4 0 60 3
Mvmt Flow 9 22 357 22 70 327
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 834 367 0 0 378 0
Stage 1 367 -----
Stage 2 466 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.2 - - 4.7 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.9 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 3.3 - - 2.74 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 281 682 - - 923 -
Stage 1 606 -----
Stage 2 542 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 255 682 - - 923 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 255 -----
Stage 1 606 -----
Stage 2 492 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.34 0 1.62

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 462 923 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.066 0.075 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.3 9.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.2 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 229 38 29 291 2 45 61 14 4 45 28
Future Vol, veh/h 17 229 38 29 291 2 45 61 14 4 45 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 3 29 2 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 18 249 41 32 316 2 49 66 15 4 49 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 318 0 0 290 0 0 710 688 270 699 708 317 Stage 1 - - - - - - 307 307 - 380 380 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 404 382 - 319 327 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.39 - - 7.15 6.5 6.29 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.461 - - 3.545 4 3.381 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1253 - - 1132 - - 344 372 753 357 362 728 Stage 1 - - - - - - 697 665 - 646 617 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 617 616 - 697 651 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1253 - - 1132 - - 271 353 753 272 344 728 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 271 353 - 272 344 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 685 653 - 634 596 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 525 596 - 603 640 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.47 0.74 22.41 15.75

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 335 1253 - - 1132 - - 418
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.389 0.015 - - 0.028 - - 0.2
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 22.4 7.9 0 - 8.3 0 - 15.7
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.8 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.7
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 4 20 110 86 24
Future Vol, veh/h 8 4 20 110 86 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 3 1 71
Mvmt Flow 9 4 22 120 93 26
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 270 107 120 0 - 0
Stage 1 107 -----
Stage 2 163 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 724 953 1481 - - -
Stage 1 923 -----
Stage 2 871 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 713 953 1481 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 713 -----
Stage 1 908 -----
Stage 2 871 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.71 1.15 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1481 - 778 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Near Term AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 21 18 0 0 12
Future Vol, veh/h 44 21 18 0 0 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 48 23 20 0 0 13
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 20 0 - 0 138 20
Stage 1 - - - - 20 -
Stage 2 - - - - 118 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1597 - - - 855 1058
Stage 1 - - - - 1003 -
Stage 2 - - - - 907 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1597 - - - 829 1058
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 829 -
Stage 1 - - - - 973 -
Stage 2 - - - - 907 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 4.96 0 8.44

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1597 - - - 1058
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Near Term AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 11 15 25 6 3
Future Vol, veh/h 10 11 15 25 6 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 12 16 27 7 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 43 0 - 0 64 30
Stage 1 - - - - 30 -
Stage 2 - - - - 34 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1565 - - - 942 1045
Stage 1 - - - - 993 -
Stage 2 - - - - 989 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1565 - - - 936 1045
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 936 -
Stage 1 - - - - 986 -
Stage 2 - - - - 989 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 3.48 0 8.75

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1565 - - - 969
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.01
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 50 17 10 5 5
Future Vol, veh/h 28 50 17 10 5 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 87 0 0 100 0 67
Mvmt Flow 30 54 18 11 5 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 29 0 - 0 139 24
Stage 1 - - - - 24 -
Stage 2 - - - - 115 -
Critical Hdwy 4.97 - - - 6.4 6.87
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.983 - - - 3.5 3.903
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1173 - - - 859 893
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 915 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1173 - - - 836 893
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 836 -
Stage 1 - - - - 977 -
Stage 2 - - - - 915 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 2.93 0 9.22

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1173 - - - 863
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - - 0.013
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - - 9.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 3 344 8 1 306
Future Vol, veh/h 1 3 344 8 1 306
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 4 50 0 5
Mvmt Flow 1 3 374 9 1 333
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 713 378 0 0 383 0
Stage 1 378 -----
Stage 2 335 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 401 498 - - 1187 -
Stage 1 697 -----
Stage 2 729 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 401 498 - - 1187 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 401 -----
Stage 1 697 -----
Stage 2 728 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.74 0 0.03

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 469 1187 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.7 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 43 308 17 19 288
Future Vol, veh/h 37 43 308 17 19 288
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 21 11 3 7 6 3
Mvmt Flow 40 47 335 18 21 313
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 698 344 0 0 353 0
Stage 1 344 -----
Stage 2 354 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.61 6.31 - - 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.61 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.61 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.689 3.399 - - 2.254 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 379 679 - - 1184 -
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 670 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 371 679 - - 1184 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 371 -----
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 656 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.91 0 0.5

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 491 1184 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.177 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.9 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 12 3 3 45 16 12 106 8 5 67 8
Future Vol, veh/h 9 12 3 3 45 16 12 106 8 5 67 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 0 0 0 13 15 9 1 17 0 2 0
Mvmt Flow 10 13 3 3 49 17 13 115 9 5 73 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 254 238 77 236 238 120 82 0 0 124 0 0 Stage 1 88 88 - 146 146 -------
Stage 2 166 150 - 90 92 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.5 - 7.1 6.63 - 4.19 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4 - 3.5 4.117 - 2.281 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 677 666 0 723 644 0 1473 - - 1475 - - Stage 1 893 826 0 862 756 0 ------
Stage 2 811 777 0 922 797 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 617 658 - 699 636 - 1473 - - 1475 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 617 658 - 699 636 -------
Stage 1 884 823 - 854 749 -------
Stage 2 751 770 - 904 794 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.71 0.47

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1473 ---- 1475 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - - 0.004 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 43 374 9 24 412
Future Vol, veh/h 18 43 374 9 24 412
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 6 50 10 6
Mvmt Flow 19 45 390 9 25 429
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 873 394 0 0 399 0
Stage 1 394 -----
Stage 2 479 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.2 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.29 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 323 659 - - 1118 -
Stage 1 685 -----
Stage 2 627 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 314 659 - - 1118 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 314 -----
Stage 1 685 -----
Stage 2 609 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.29 0 0.46

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 497 1118 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.128 0.022 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.3 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 312 51 14 234 5 54 54 14 9 75 20
Future Vol, veh/h 17 312 51 14 234 5 54 54 14 9 75 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 18 339 55 15 254 5 59 59 15 10 82 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 260 0 0 395 0 0 729 694 367 693 719 257 Stage 1 - - - - - - 404 404 - 287 287 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 326 290 - 405 432 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.52 6.2 7.1 6.51 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4.018 3.3 3.5 4.009 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1276 - - 1175 - - 341 366 683 360 356 786 Stage 1 - - - - - - 627 599 - 724 676 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 691 672 - 626 584 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1276 - - 1175 - - 246 354 683 286 344 786 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 246 354 - 286 344 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 616 588 - 711 666 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 581 662 - 541 573 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.35 0.45 24.92 18.54

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 311 1276 - - 1175 - - 378
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.426 0.014 - - 0.013 - - 0.299
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 24.9 7.9 0 - 8.1 0 - 18.5
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2 0 - - 0 - - 1.2
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 23 11 111 130 8
Future Vol, veh/h 17 23 11 111 130 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 17 3 1 0
Mvmt Flow 18 24 12 118 138 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 284 143 147 0 - 0
Stage 1 143 -----
Stage 2 141 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.27 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.353 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 710 910 1348 - - -
Stage 1 889 -----
Stage 2 890 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 704 910 1348 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 704 -----
Stage 1 881 -----
Stage 2 890 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.69 0.69 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1348 - 809 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.053 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Near Term PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 19 27 0 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 23 19 27 0 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 25 21 29 0 0 47
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 29 0 - 0 100 29
Stage 1 - - - - 29 -
Stage 2 - - - - 71 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1584 - - - 899 1045
Stage 1 - - - - 993 -
Stage 2 - - - - 952 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1584 - - - 884 1045
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 884 -
Stage 1 - - - - 977 -
Stage 2 - - - - 952 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 4 0 8.6

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1584 - - - 1045
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - - 0.045
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Near Term PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 19 17 9 25 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 19 17 9 25 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 21 18 10 27 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 28 0 - 0 53 23
Stage 1 - - - - 23 -
Stage 2 - - - - 29 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 956 1053
Stage 1 - - - - 999 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 953 1053
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 953 -
Stage 1 - - - - 996 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.27 0 8.82

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1585 - - - 980
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.039
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 25 49 11 9 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 25 49 11 9 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 38 0 0
Mvmt Flow 4 27 53 12 10 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 65 0 - 0 95 59
Stage 1 - - - - 59 -
Stage 2 - - - - 36 -
Critical Hdwy 5.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1089 - - - 909 1012
Stage 1 - - - - 968 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1089 - - - 906 1012
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 906 -
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.15 0 8.98

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1089 - - - 915
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 378 3 0 391
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 378 3 0 391
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 6 100 0 6
Mvmt Flow 0 3 386 3 0 399
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 786 387 0 0 389 0
Stage 1 387 -----
Stage 2 399 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 364 491 - - 1181 -
Stage 1 690 -----
Stage 2 682 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 364 491 - - 1181 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 364 -----
Stage 1 690 -----
Stage 2 682 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.38 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 491 1181 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 23 358 32 28 364
Future Vol, veh/h 15 23 358 32 28 364
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 0 7 12 4 3
Mvmt Flow 16 24 373 33 29 379
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 827 390 0 0 406 0
Stage 1 390 -----
Stage 2 438 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.48 6.2 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 3.3 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 333 663 - - 1142 -
Stage 1 672 -----
Stage 2 638 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 323 663 - - 1142 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 323 -----
Stage 1 672 -----
Stage 2 618 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 13.4 0 0.59

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 468 1142 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.085 0.026 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.4 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 18 3 97 5 13 138 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 18 3 97 5 13 138 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 17 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 41 10 5 17 20 3 105 5 14 150 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 301 298 152 314 297 108 154 0 0 111 0 0 Stage 1 180 180 - 115 115 -------
Stage 2 121 117 - 199 183 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.67 - 7.1 6.5 - 4.1 - - 4.2 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.153 - 3.5 4 - 2.2 - - 2.29 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 655 590 0 643 618 0 1438 - - 1431 - - Stage 1 826 723 0 895 805 0 ------
Stage 2 889 770 0 808 752 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 628 582 - 590 610 - 1438 - - 1431 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 628 582 - 590 610 -------
Stage 1 824 715 - 893 803 -------
Stage 2 867 769 - 753 744 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.21 0.63

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1438 ---- 1431 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - 0.01 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 43 374 9 24 412
Future Vol, veh/h 18 43 374 9 24 412
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 50 0 4 0 60 3
Mvmt Flow 20 47 407 10 26 448
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 911 411 0 0 416 0
Stage 1 411 -----
Stage 2 500 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.2 - - 4.7 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.9 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 3.3 - - 2.74 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 251 645 - - 890 -
Stage 1 577 -----
Stage 2 522 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 242 645 - - 890 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 242 -----
Stage 1 577 -----
Stage 2 501 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.84 0 0.5

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 432 890 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.153 0.029 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.8 9.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.1 -
HCM 7th AWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 312 51 14 234 5 54 54 14 9 75 20
Future Vol, veh/h 17 312 51 14 234 5 54 54 14 9 75 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 3 29 2 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 18 339 55 15 254 5 59 59 15 10 82 22
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1111
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 14.7 13.2 10.8 10.3

HCM LOS B B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 44% 4% 6% 9%
Vol Thru, % 44% 82% 92% 72%
Vol Right, % 11% 13% 2% 19%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 122 380 253 104
LT Vol 54 17 14 9
Through Vol 54 312 234 75
RT Vol 14 51 5 20
Lane Flow Rate 133 413 275 113
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.223 0.576 0.438 0.185
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.047 5.02 5.732 5.896
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 591 719 627 607
Service Time 4.101 3.059 3.775 3.952
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.225 0.574 0.439 0.186
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10.8 14.7 13.2 10.3
HCM Lane LOS BBBB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 3.7 2.2 0.7
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 23 11 111 130 8
Future Vol, veh/h 17 23 11 111 130 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 3 1 71
Mvmt Flow 18 25 12 121 141 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 290 146 150 0 - 0
Stage 1 146 -----
Stage 2 145 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 705 907 1444 - - -
Stage 1 887 -----
Stage 2 888 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 698 907 1444 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 698 -----
Stage 1 879 -----
Stage 2 888 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.73 0.68 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1444 - 805 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.054 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 19 17 0 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 15 19 17 0 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 21 18 0 0 47
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 18 0 - 0 72 18
Stage 1 - - - - 18 -
Stage 2 - - - - 53 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1598 - - - 932 1060
Stage 1 - - - - 1004 -
Stage 2 - - - - 969 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1598 - - - 923 1060
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 923 -
Stage 1 - - - - 994 -
Stage 2 - - - - 969 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 3.21 0 8.55

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1598 - - - 1060
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - - 0.044
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 19 17 9 25 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 19 17 9 25 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 21 18 10 27 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 28 0 - 0 53 23
Stage 1 - - - - 23 -
Stage 2 - - - - 29 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 956 1053
Stage 1 - - - - 999 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 953 1053
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 953 -
Stage 1 - - - - 996 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.27 0 8.82

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1585 - - - 980
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.039
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 25 49 11 9 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 25 49 11 9 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 87 0 0 100 0 67
Mvmt Flow 4 27 53 12 10 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 65 0 - 0 95 59
Stage 1 - - - - 59 -
Stage 2 - - - - 36 -
Critical Hdwy 4.97 - - - 6.4 6.87
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.983 - - - 3.5 3.903
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1133 - - - 909 851
Stage 1 - - - - 968 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1133 - - - 906 851
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 906 -
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.13 0 9.05

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1133 - - - 900
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 378 3 0 391
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 378 3 0 391
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 4 50 0 5
Mvmt Flow 0 3 411 3 0 425
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 838 413 0 0 414 0
Stage 1 413 -----
Stage 2 425 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 339 473 - - 1156 -
Stage 1 673 -----
Stage 2 664 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 339 473 - - 1156 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 339 -----
Stage 1 673 -----
Stage 2 664 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.66 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 473 1156 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.007 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.7 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 23 358 32 28 364
Future Vol, veh/h 15 23 358 32 28 364
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 21 11 3 7 6 3
Mvmt Flow 16 25 389 35 30 396
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 863 407 0 0 424 0
Stage 1 407 -----
Stage 2 457 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.61 6.31 - - 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.61 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.61 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.689 3.399 - - 2.254 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 301 625 - - 1114 -
Stage 1 633 -----
Stage 2 600 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 291 625 - - 1114 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 291 -----
Stage 1 633 -----
Stage 2 579 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.26 0 0.59

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 430 1114 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.096 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.3 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 18 3 97 5 13 138 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 18 3 97 5 13 138 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 0 0 0 13 15 9 1 17 0 2 0
Mvmt Flow 3 41 10 5 17 20 3 105 5 14 150 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 301 298 152 314 297 108 154 0 0 111 0 0 Stage 1 180 180 - 115 115 -------
Stage 2 121 117 - 199 183 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.5 - 7.1 6.63 - 4.19 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4 - 3.5 4.117 - 2.281 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 630 617 0 643 597 0 1384 - - 1492 - - Stage 1 796 754 0 895 780 0 ------
Stage 2 858 802 0 808 728 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 604 609 - 592 589 - 1384 - - 1492 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 604 609 - 592 589 -------
Stage 1 794 746 - 893 778 -------
Stage 2 836 800 - 755 721 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.22 0.62

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1384 ---- 1492 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 0 - - - 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 43 374 9 24 412
Future Vol, veh/h 18 43 374 9 24 412
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 6 50 10 6
Mvmt Flow 19 45 390 9 25 429
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 873 394 0 0 399 0
Stage 1 394 -----
Stage 2 479 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.2 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.29 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 323 659 - - 1118 -
Stage 1 685 -----
Stage 2 627 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 314 659 - - 1118 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 314 -----
Stage 1 685 -----
Stage 2 609 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.29 0 0.46

HCM LOS C B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 44% 4% 6% 9%
Vol Thru, % 44% 82% 92% 72%
Vol Right, % 11% 13% 2% 19%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 122 380 253 104
LT Vol 54 17 14 9
Through Vol 54 312 234 75
RT Vol 14 51 5 20
Lane Flow Rate 133 413 275 113
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.218 0.584 0.4 0.183
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.911 5.091 5.231 5.841
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 606 710 687 613
Service Time 3.959 3.125 3.268 3.891
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.219 0.582 0.4 0.184
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10.6 15.1 11.7 10.2
HCM Lane LOS B C B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 3.8 1.9 0.7
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 23 11 111 130 8
Future Vol, veh/h 17 23 11 111 130 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 17 3 1 0
Mvmt Flow 18 24 12 118 138 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 284 143 147 0 - 0
Stage 1 143 -----
Stage 2 141 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.27 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.353 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 710 910 1348 - - -
Stage 1 889 -----
Stage 2 890 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 704 910 1348 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 704 -----
Stage 1 881 -----
Stage 2 890 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.69 0.69 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1348 - 809 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.053 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 23 27 0 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 15 23 27 0 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 25 29 0 0 47
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 29 0 - 0 87 29
Stage 1 - - - - 29 -
Stage 2 - - - - 58 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1584 - - - 914 1045
Stage 1 - - - - 993 -
Stage 2 - - - - 965 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1584 - - - 905 1045
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 905 -
Stage 1 - - - - 983 -
Stage 2 - - - - 965 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 2.88 0 8.6

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1584 - - - 1045
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - - 0.045
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 19 17 9 25 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 19 17 9 25 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 21 18 10 27 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 28 0 - 0 53 23
Stage 1 - - - - 23 -
Stage 2 - - - - 29 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 956 1053
Stage 1 - - - - 999 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 953 1053
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 953 -
Stage 1 - - - - 996 -
Stage 2 - - - - 993 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.27 0 8.82

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1585 - - - 980
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.039
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 25 49 11 9 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 25 49 11 9 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 38 0 0
Mvmt Flow 4 27 53 12 10 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 65 0 - 0 95 59
Stage 1 - - - - 59 -
Stage 2 - - - - 36 -
Critical Hdwy 5.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1089 - - - 909 1012
Stage 1 - - - - 968 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1089 - - - 906 1012
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 906 -
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.15 0 8.98

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1089 - - - 915
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 378 3 0 391
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 378 3 0 391
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 6 100 0 6
Mvmt Flow 0 3 386 3 0 399
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 786 387 0 0 389 0
Stage 1 387 -----
Stage 2 399 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 364 491 - - 1181 -
Stage 1 690 -----
Stage 2 682 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 364 491 - - 1181 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 364 -----
Stage 1 690 -----
Stage 2 682 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.38 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 491 1181 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 23 358 32 28 364
Future Vol, veh/h 15 23 358 32 28 364
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 0 7 12 4 3
Mvmt Flow 16 24 373 33 29 379
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 827 390 0 0 406 0
Stage 1 390 -----
Stage 2 438 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.48 6.2 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 3.3 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 333 663 - - 1142 -
Stage 1 672 -----
Stage 2 638 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 323 663 - - 1142 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 323 -----
Stage 1 672 -----
Stage 2 618 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 13.4 0 0.59

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 468 1142 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.085 0.026 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.4 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 18 3 97 5 13 138 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 38 9 5 16 18 3 97 5 13 138 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 17 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 41 10 5 17 20 3 105 5 14 150 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 301 298 152 314 297 108 154 0 0 111 0 0 Stage 1 180 180 - 115 115 -------
Stage 2 121 117 - 199 183 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.67 - 7.1 6.5 - 4.1 - - 4.2 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.153 - 3.5 4 - 2.2 - - 2.29 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 655 590 0 643 618 0 1438 - - 1431 - - Stage 1 826 723 0 895 805 0 ------
Stage 2 889 770 0 808 752 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 628 582 - 590 610 - 1438 - - 1431 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 628 582 - 590 610 -------
Stage 1 824 715 - 893 803 -------
Stage 2 867 769 - 753 744 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.21 0.63

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1438 ---- 1431 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - - 0.01 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 48 344 26 111 316
Future Vol, veh/h 21 48 344 26 111 316
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 50 0 4 0 60 3
Mvmt Flow 23 52 374 28 121 343
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 973 388 0 0 402 0
Stage 1 388 -----
Stage 2 585 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.2 - - 4.7 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.9 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 3.3 - - 2.74 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 230 665 - - 902 -
Stage 1 593 -----
Stage 2 474 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 192 665 - - 902 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 192 -----
Stage 1 593 -----
Stage 2 395 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 16.8 0 2.5

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 380 902 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.198 0.134 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 16.8 9.6 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.5 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 231 45 24 300 2 47 62 13 6 65 45
Future Vol, veh/h 18 231 45 24 300 2 47 62 13 6 65 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 3 29 2 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 20 251 49 26 326 2 51 67 14 7 71 49
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 328 0 0 300 0 0 728 695 276 703 718 327 Stage 1 - - - - - - 315 315 - 379 379 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 414 380 - 324 339 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.39 - - 7.15 6.5 6.29 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.461 - - 3.545 4 3.381 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1243 - - 1122 - - 335 368 747 355 357 719 Stage 1 - - - - - - 690 659 - 647 618 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 610 617 - 693 643 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1243 - - 1122 - - 238 351 747 270 340 719 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 238 351 - 270 340 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 677 647 - 634 600 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 487 600 - 597 631 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.49 0.61 24.84 17.18

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 312 1243 - - 1122 - - 421
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.426 0.016 - - 0.023 - - 0.3
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 24.8 7.9 0 - 8.3 0 - 17.2
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2 0 - - 0.1 - - 1.2
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 1 8 116 90 51
Future Vol, veh/h 5 1 8 116 90 51
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 3 1 71
Mvmt Flow 5 1 9 126 98 55
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 269 126 153 0 - 0
Stage 1 126 -----
Stage 2 143 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 725 930 1440 - - -
Stage 1 905 -----
Stage 2 889 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 720 930 1440 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 720 -----
Stage 1 899 -----
Stage 2 889 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.85 0.48 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1440 - 748 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 9.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 53 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 53 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 13 58 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 58 0 - 0 71 58
Stage 1 - - - - 58 -
Stage 2 - - - - 13 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 934 1009
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1010 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 934 1009
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 934 -
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1010 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1547 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 12 53 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 12 53 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 13 58 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 58 0 - 0 71 58
Stage 1 - - - - 58 -
Stage 2 - - - - 13 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 934 1009
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1010 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1547 - - - 934 1009
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 934 -
Stage 1 - - - - 965 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1010 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1547 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 6 40 14 5 9
Future Vol, veh/h 29 6 40 14 5 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 87 0 0 100 0 67
Mvmt Flow 32 7 43 15 5 10
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 59 0 - 0 121 51
Stage 1 - - - - 51 -
Stage 2 - - - - 70 -
Critical Hdwy 4.97 - - - 6.4 6.87
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.983 - - - 3.5 3.903
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - - 880 860
Stage 1 - - - - 977 -
Stage 2 - - - - 958 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - - 855 860
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 855 -
Stage 1 - - - - 949 -
Stage 2 - - - - 958 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 6.83 0 9.27

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1140 - - - 858
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - - 0.018
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - - 9.3
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Cumulative AM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 3 341 8 1 310
Future Vol, veh/h 1 3 341 8 1 310
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 4 50 0 5
Mvmt Flow 1 3 371 9 1 337
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 714 375 0 0 379 0
Stage 1 375 -----
Stage 2 339 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 401 500 - - 1190 -
Stage 1 699 -----
Stage 2 726 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 400 500 - - 1190 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 400 -----
Stage 1 699 -----
Stage 2 725 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.72 0 0.03

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 471 1190 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.7 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 49 301 18 20 289
Future Vol, veh/h 39 49 301 18 20 289
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 21 11 3 7 6 3
Mvmt Flow 42 53 327 20 22 314
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 695 337 0 0 347 0
Stage 1 337 -----
Stage 2 358 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.61 6.31 - - 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.61 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.61 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.689 3.399 - - 2.254 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 381 685 - - 1190 -
Stage 1 683 -----
Stage 2 668 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 373 685 - - 1190 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 373 -----
Stage 1 683 -----
Stage 2 653 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.91 0 0.52

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 499 1190 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.192 0.018 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.9 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 13 6 3 47 17 28 99 8 5 67 8
Future Vol, veh/h 9 13 6 3 47 17 28 99 8 5 67 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 0 0 0 13 15 9 1 17 0 2 0
Mvmt Flow 10 14 7 3 51 18 30 108 9 5 73 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 282 265 77 264 265 112 82 0 0 116 0 0 Stage 1 88 88 - 173 173 -------
Stage 2 194 177 - 91 92 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.5 - 7.1 6.63 - 4.19 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4 - 3.5 4.117 - 2.281 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 649 644 0 693 622 0 1473 - - 1485 - - Stage 1 893 826 0 834 735 0 ------
Stage 2 783 756 0 921 797 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 580 627 - 661 606 - 1473 - - 1485 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 580 627 - 661 606 -------
Stage 1 873 823 - 815 719 -------
Stage 2 711 740 - 902 794 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.55 0.46

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1473 ---- 1485 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - - - 0.004 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 62 387 21 62 433
Future Vol, veh/h 28 62 387 21 62 433
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 6 50 10 6
Mvmt Flow 29 65 403 22 65 451
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 994 414 0 0 425 0
Stage 1 414 -----
Stage 2 580 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.2 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.29 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 274 643 - - 1093 -
Stage 1 671 -----
Stage 2 564 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 252 643 - - 1093 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 252 -----
Stage 1 671 -----
Stage 2 519 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v15.57 0 1.06

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 434 1093 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.216 0.059 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 15.6 8.5 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0.2 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 328 54 13 244 6 57 65 8 9 77 20
Future Vol, veh/h 30 328 54 13 244 6 57 65 8 9 77 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 33 357 59 14 265 7 62 71 9 10 84 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 272 0 0 415 0 0 786 751 386 754 777 268 Stage 1 - - - - - - 451 451 - 297 297 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 335 300 - 457 480 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.52 6.2 7.1 6.51 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4.018 3.3 3.5 4.009 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1263 - - 1155 - - 312 340 666 328 329 775 Stage 1 - - - - - - 592 571 - 716 670 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 683 666 - 587 556 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1263 - - 1155 - - 214 323 666 244 313 775 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 214 323 - 244 313 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 572 552 - 692 660 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 571 656 - 488 537 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.58 0.4 31.81 20.67

HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 271 1263 - - 1155 - - 344
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.521 0.026 - - 0.012 - - 0.335
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 31.8 7.9 0 - 8.2 0 - 20.7
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.8 0.1 - - 0 - - 1.4
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 11 7 117 137 7
Future Vol, veh/h 35 11 7 117 137 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 17 3 1 0
Mvmt Flow 37 12 7 124 146 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 289 149 153 0 - 0
Stage 1 149 -----
Stage 2 139 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.27 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.353 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 706 902 1341 - - -
Stage 1 883 -----
Stage 2 892 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 702 902 1341 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 702 -----
Stage 1 878 -----
Stage 2 892 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 10.2 0.43 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1341 - 741 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.066 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 10.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 48 18 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 48 18 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 52 20 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 20 0 - 0 72 20
Stage 1 - - - - 20 -
Stage 2 - - - - 52 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1597 - - - 932 1058
Stage 1 - - - - 1003 -
Stage 2 - - - - 970 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1597 - - - 932 1058
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 932 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1003 -
Stage 2 - - - - 970 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1597 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 48 18 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 48 18 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 52 20 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 20 0 - 0 72 20
Stage 1 - - - - 20 -
Stage 2 - - - - 52 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1597 - - - 932 1058
Stage 1 - - - - 1003 -
Stage 2 - - - - 970 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1597 - - - 932 1058
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 932 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1003 -
Stage 2 - - - - 970 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1597 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 38 6 12 10 1
Future Vol, veh/h 5 38 6 12 10 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 38 0 0
Mvmt Flow 6 46 7 15 12 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 22 0 - 0 73 15
Stage 1 - - - - 15 -
Stage 2 - - - - 59 -
Critical Hdwy 5.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1136 - - - 936 1071
Stage 1 - - - - 1013 -
Stage 2 - - - - 969 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1136 - - - 930 1071
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 930 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1008 -
Stage 2 - - - - 969 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.95 0 8.88

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1136 - - - 942
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.014
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 0 - - 8.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Cumulative PM without Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 407 4 0 388
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 407 4 0 388
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 6 100 0 6
Mvmt Flow 0 3 415 4 0 396
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 813 417 0 0 419 0
Stage 1 417 -----
Stage 2 396 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 351 470 - - 1151 -
Stage 1 669 -----
Stage 2 684 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 351 470 - - 1151 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 351 -----
Stage 1 669 -----
Stage 2 684 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.71 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 470 1151 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.007 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.7 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 29 379 34 35 352
Future Vol, veh/h 16 29 379 34 35 352
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 0 7 12 4 3
Mvmt Flow 17 30 395 35 36 367
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 852 413 0 0 430 0
Stage 1 413 -----
Stage 2 440 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.48 6.2 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 3.3 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 322 644 - - 1119 -
Stage 1 655 -----
Stage 2 637 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 309 644 - - 1119 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 309 -----
Stage 1 655 -----
Stage 2 611 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.61 0 0.75

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 465 1119 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.101 0.033 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.6 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 40 34 5 17 19 10 98 5 14 132 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 40 34 5 17 19 10 98 5 14 132 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 17 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 43 37 5 18 21 11 107 5 15 143 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 314 310 146 327 309 109 148 0 0 112 0 0 Stage 1 176 176 - 131 131 -------
Stage 2 137 134 - 196 178 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.67 - 7.1 6.5 - 4.1 - - 4.2 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.153 - 3.5 4 - 2.2 - - 2.29 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 643 581 0 630 608 0 1446 - - 1429 - - Stage 1 830 726 0 877 792 0 ------
Stage 2 870 758 0 811 756 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 611 569 - 572 597 - 1446 - - 1429 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 611 569 - 572 597 -------
Stage 1 824 717 - 870 785 -------
Stage 2 843 752 - 753 747 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.66 0.7

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1446 ---- 1429 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - - - 0.011 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 58 344 42 150 316
Future Vol, veh/h 26 58 344 42 150 316
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 50 0 4 0 60 3
Mvmt Flow 28 63 374 46 163 343
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1066 397 0 0 420 0
Stage 1 397 -----
Stage 2 670 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.2 - - 4.7 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.9 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 3.3 - - 2.74 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 200 657 - - 887 -
Stage 1 587 -----
Stage 2 429 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 657 - - 887 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 155 -----
Stage 1 587 -----
Stage 2 332 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v20.16 0 3.21

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 328 887 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.278 0.184 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 20.2 10 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.7 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 231 45 31 300 2 47 64 15 6 72 45
Future Vol, veh/h 18 231 45 31 300 2 47 64 15 6 72 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 3 29 2 0 5 0 9 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 20 251 49 34 326 2 51 70 16 7 78 49
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 328 0 0 300 0 0 747 710 276 720 734 327 Stage 1 - - - - - - 315 315 - 395 395 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 433 396 - 325 339 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.39 - - 7.15 6.5 6.29 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.15 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.461 - - 3.545 4 3.381 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1243 - - 1122 - - 325 361 747 346 350 719 Stage 1 - - - - - - 690 659 - 635 608 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 596 608 - 692 643 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1243 - - 1122 - - 221 341 747 257 331 719 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 221 341 - 257 331 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 677 647 - 623 586 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 463 585 - 592 631 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.49 0.77 26.69 18.2

HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 300 1243 - - 1122 - - 405
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.456 0.016 - - 0.03 - - 0.33
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 26.7 7.9 0 - 8.3 0 - 18.2
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.3 0 - - 0.1 - - 1.4
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 4 20 116 90 63
Future Vol, veh/h 8 4 20 116 90 63
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 3 1 71
Mvmt Flow 9 4 22 126 98 68
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 302 132 166 0 - 0
Stage 1 132 -----
Stage 2 170 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 694 923 1424 - - -
Stage 1 899 -----
Stage 2 865 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 683 923 1424 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 683 -----
Stage 1 884 -----
Stage 2 865 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.9 1.11 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1424 - 748 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 0 9.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Cumulative AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 22 56 0 0 12
Future Vol, veh/h 44 22 56 0 0 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 48 24 61 0 0 13
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 61 0 - 0 180 61
Stage 1 - - - - 61 -
Stage 2 - - - - 120 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1542 - - - 809 1004
Stage 1 - - - - 962 -
Stage 2 - - - - 906 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1542 - - - 784 1004
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 784 -
Stage 1 - - - - 932 -
Stage 2 - - - - 906 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 4.94 0 8.63

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1542 - - - 1004
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 - - - 0.013
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Cumulative AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 12 53 25 6 3
Future Vol, veh/h 10 12 53 25 6 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 13 58 27 7 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 85 0 - 0 106 71
Stage 1 - - - - 71 -
Stage 2 - - - - 35 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1512 - - - 892 991
Stage 1 - - - - 952 -
Stage 2 - - - - 988 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1512 - - - 885 991
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 885 -
Stage 1 - - - - 945 -
Stage 2 - - - - 988 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 3.36 0 8.96

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1512 - - - 918
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.011
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 50 52 14 5 9
Future Vol, veh/h 29 50 52 14 5 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 87 0 0 100 0 67
Mvmt Flow 32 54 57 15 5 10
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 72 0 - 0 182 64
Stage 1 - - - - 64 -
Stage 2 - - - - 117 -
Critical Hdwy 4.97 - - - 6.4 6.87
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.983 - - - 3.5 3.903
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1126 - - - 813 845
Stage 1 - - - - 964 -
Stage 2 - - - - 913 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1126 - - - 789 845
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 789 -
Stage 1 - - - - 936 -
Stage 2 - - - - 913 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 3.04 0 9.45

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1126 - - - 824
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - - 0.018
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 - - 9.5
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 3 357 8 1 315
Future Vol, veh/h 1 3 357 8 1 315
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 4 50 0 5
Mvmt Flow 1 3 388 9 1 342
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 737 392 0 0 397 0
Stage 1 392 -----
Stage 2 345 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 389 487 - - 1173 -
Stage 1 687 -----
Stage 2 722 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 388 487 - - 1173 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 388 -----
Stage 1 687 -----
Stage 2 721 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.93 0 0.03

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 458 1173 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.9 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 49 317 18 20 294
Future Vol, veh/h 39 49 317 18 20 294
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 21 11 3 7 6 3
Mvmt Flow 42 53 345 20 22 320
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 717 354 0 0 364 0
Stage 1 354 -----
Stage 2 363 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.61 6.31 - - 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.61 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.61 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.689 3.399 - - 2.254 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 369 670 - - 1173 -
Stage 1 670 -----
Stage 2 664 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 361 670 - - 1173 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 361 -----
Stage 1 670 -----
Stage 2 649 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.22 0 0.52

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 486 1173 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.197 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.2 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 13 6 3 47 17 28 111 8 5 70 8
Future Vol, veh/h 9 13 6 3 47 17 28 111 8 5 70 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 0 0 0 13 15 9 1 17 0 2 0
Mvmt Flow 10 14 7 3 51 18 30 121 9 5 76 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 298 282 80 280 282 125 85 0 0 129 0 0 Stage 1 91 91 - 186 186 -------
Stage 2 207 190 - 94 96 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.5 - 7.1 6.63 - 4.19 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4 - 3.5 4.117 - 2.281 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 633 630 0 676 609 0 1469 - - 1469 - - Stage 1 889 823 0 821 726 0 ------
Stage 2 770 747 0 918 795 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 564 614 - 644 593 - 1469 - - 1469 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 564 614 - 644 593 -------
Stage 1 870 820 - 802 710 -------
Stage 2 699 730 - 898 792 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.43 0.45

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1469 ---- 1469 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - - - 0.004 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 100 387 27 75 433
Future Vol, veh/h 44 100 387 27 75 433
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 6 50 10 6
Mvmt Flow 46 104 403 28 78 451
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1024 417 0 0 431 0
Stage 1 417 -----
Stage 2 607 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.2 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.29 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 263 640 - - 1087 -
Stage 1 669 -----
Stage 2 548 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 238 640 - - 1087 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 238 -----
Stage 1 669 -----
Stage 2 495 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v18.17 0 1.27

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 422 1087 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.356 0.072 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 18.2 8.6 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.6 0.2 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 328 54 15 244 6 57 71 14 9 79 20
Future Vol, veh/h 30 328 54 15 244 6 57 71 14 9 79 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 33 357 59 16 265 7 62 77 15 10 86 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 272 0 0 415 0 0 792 755 386 761 782 268 Stage 1 - - - - - - 451 451 - 301 301 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 341 304 - 460 480 -
Critical Hdwy 4.17 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.52 6.2 7.1 6.51 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.52 - 6.1 5.51 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.263 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4.018 3.3 3.5 4.009 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1263 - - 1155 - - 309 338 666 324 327 775 Stage 1 - - - - - - 592 571 - 712 667 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 678 663 - 585 556 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1263 - - 1155 - - 210 321 666 231 311 775 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 210 321 - 231 311 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 572 552 - 688 656 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 563 652 - 475 537 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.58 0.46 33.37 21.16

HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 276 1263 - - 1155 - - 339
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.559 0.026 - - 0.014 - - 0.347
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 33.4 7.9 0 - 8.2 0 - 21.2
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 1.5
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 23 11 117 137 11
Future Vol, veh/h 47 23 11 117 137 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 17 3 1 0
Mvmt Flow 50 24 12 124 146 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 299 152 157 0 - 0
Stage 1 152 -----
Stage 2 148 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.27 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.353 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 696 900 1336 - - -
Stage 1 881 -----
Stage 2 885 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 690 900 1336 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 690 -----
Stage 1 873 -----
Stage 2 885 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v10.35 0.66 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1336 - 747 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.1 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 10.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Cumulative PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 52 28 0 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 15 52 28 0 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 57 30 0 0 47
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 30 0 - 0 120 30
Stage 1 - - - - 30 -
Stage 2 - - - - 89 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1582 - - - 876 1044
Stage 1 - - - - 992 -
Stage 2 - - - - 934 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1582 - - - 867 1044
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 867 -
Stage 1 - - - - 982 -
Stage 2 - - - - 934 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.63 0 8.61

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1582 - - - 1044
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - - 0.045
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Cumulative PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 48 18 9 25 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 48 18 9 25 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 52 20 10 27 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 29 0 - 0 85 24
Stage 1 - - - - 24 -
Stage 2 - - - - 61 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1584 - - - 916 1052
Stage 1 - - - - 998 -
Stage 2 - - - - 962 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1584 - - - 913 1052
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 913 -
Stage 1 - - - - 995 -
Stage 2 - - - - 962 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.56 0 8.95

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1584 - - - 949
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.04
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 53 49 12 10 1
Future Vol, veh/h 5 53 49 12 10 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 38 0 0
Mvmt Flow 5 58 53 13 11 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 66 0 - 0 128 60
Stage 1 - - - - 60 -
Stage 2 - - - - 68 -
Critical Hdwy 5.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1088 - - - 871 1011
Stage 1 - - - - 968 -
Stage 2 - - - - 959 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1088 - - - 866 1011
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 866 -
Stage 1 - - - - 963 -
Stage 2 - - - - 959 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.72 0 9.16

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1088 - - - 878
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.014
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 - - 9.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 413 4 0 404
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 413 4 0 404
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 6 100 0 6
Mvmt Flow 0 3 421 4 0 412
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 836 423 0 0 426 0
Stage 1 423 -----
Stage 2 412 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 340 466 - - 1145 -
Stage 1 665 -----
Stage 2 673 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 340 466 - - 1145 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 340 -----
Stage 1 665 -----
Stage 2 673 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.78 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 466 1145 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.007 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.8 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 29 385 34 35 368
Future Vol, veh/h 16 29 385 34 35 368
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 0 7 12 4 3
Mvmt Flow 17 30 401 35 36 383
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 875 419 0 0 436 0
Stage 1 419 -----
Stage 2 456 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.48 6.2 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 3.3 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 312 639 - - 1113 -
Stage 1 651 -----
Stage 2 626 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 299 639 - - 1113 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 299 -----
Stage 1 651 -----
Stage 2 600 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.82 0 0.72

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 455 1113 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.103 0.033 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.8 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 40 34 5 17 19 10 102 5 14 144 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 40 34 5 17 19 10 102 5 14 144 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 17 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 43 37 5 18 21 11 111 5 15 157 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 331 327 159 344 327 114 161 0 0 116 0 0 Stage 1 189 189 - 135 135 -------
Stage 2 142 138 - 209 191 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.67 - 7.1 6.5 - 4.1 - - 4.2 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.153 - 3.5 4 - 2.2 - - 2.29 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 626 568 0 614 595 0 1430 - - 1424 - - Stage 1 817 716 0 873 788 0 ------
Stage 2 866 754 0 798 746 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 595 556 - 556 583 - 1430 - - 1424 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 595 556 - 556 583 -------
Stage 1 811 708 - 866 782 -------
Stage 2 839 748 - 740 737 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.64 0.65

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1430 ---- 1424 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - - - 0.011 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.6 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 58 344 42 150 316
Future Vol, veh/h 26 58 344 42 150 316
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 50 0 4 0 60 3
Mvmt Flow 28 63 374 46 163 343
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1066 397 0 0 420 0
Stage 1 397 -----
Stage 2 670 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.9 6.2 - - 4.7 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.9 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.9 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.95 3.3 - - 2.74 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 200 657 - - 887 -
Stage 1 587 -----
Stage 2 429 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 657 - - 887 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 155 -----
Stage 1 587 -----
Stage 2 332 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v20.16 0 3.21

HCM LOS B C B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 37% 6% 9% 5%
Vol Thru, % 51% 79% 90% 59%
Vol Right, % 12% 15% 1% 37%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 126 294 333 123
LT Vol 47 18 31 6
Through Vol 64 231 300 72
RT Vol 15 45 2 45
Lane Flow Rate 137 320 362 134
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.233 0.465 0.575 0.217
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.112 5.234 5.714 5.832
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 585 687 630 612
Service Time 4.179 3.286 3.763 3.899
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.234 0.466 0.575 0.219
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 11 12.8 16.3 10.5
HCM Lane LOS B B C B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 2.5 3.7 0.8
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 4 20 116 90 63
Future Vol, veh/h 8 4 20 116 90 63
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 3 1 71
Mvmt Flow 9 4 22 126 98 68
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 302 132 166 0 - 0
Stage 1 132 -----
Stage 2 170 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 694 923 1424 - - -
Stage 1 899 -----
Stage 2 865 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 683 923 1424 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 683 -----
Stage 1 884 -----
Stage 2 865 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.9 1.11 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1424 - 748 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 0 9.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 22 56 0 0 12
Future Vol, veh/h 44 22 56 0 0 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 48 24 61 0 0 13
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 61 0 - 0 180 61
Stage 1 - - - - 61 -
Stage 2 - - - - 120 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1542 - - - 809 1004
Stage 1 - - - - 962 -
Stage 2 - - - - 906 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1542 - - - 784 1004
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 784 -
Stage 1 - - - - 932 -
Stage 2 - - - - 906 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 4.94 0 8.63

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1542 - - - 1004
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 - - - 0.013
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 12 53 25 6 3
Future Vol, veh/h 10 12 53 25 6 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 13 58 27 7 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 85 0 - 0 106 71
Stage 1 - - - - 71 -
Stage 2 - - - - 35 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1512 - - - 892 991
Stage 1 - - - - 952 -
Stage 2 - - - - 988 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1512 - - - 885 991
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 885 -
Stage 1 - - - - 945 -
Stage 2 - - - - 988 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 3.36 0 8.96

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1512 - - - 918
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - - 0.011
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 50 52 14 5 9
Future Vol, veh/h 29 50 52 14 5 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 87 0 0 100 0 67
Mvmt Flow 32 54 57 15 5 10
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 72 0 - 0 182 64
Stage 1 - - - - 64 -
Stage 2 - - - - 117 -
Critical Hdwy 4.97 - - - 6.4 6.87
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.983 - - - 3.5 3.903
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1126 - - - 813 845
Stage 1 - - - - 964 -
Stage 2 - - - - 913 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1126 - - - 789 845
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 789 -
Stage 1 - - - - 936 -
Stage 2 - - - - 913 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 3.04 0 9.45

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1126 - - - 824
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - - 0.018
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 - - 9.5
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 3 357 8 1 315
Future Vol, veh/h 1 3 357 8 1 315
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 4 50 0 5
Mvmt Flow 1 3 388 9 1 342
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 737 392 0 0 397 0
Stage 1 392 -----
Stage 2 345 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 389 487 - - 1173 -
Stage 1 687 -----
Stage 2 722 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 388 487 - - 1173 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 388 -----
Stage 1 687 -----
Stage 2 721 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.93 0 0.03

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 458 1173 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.9 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 49 317 18 20 294
Future Vol, veh/h 39 49 317 18 20 294
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 21 11 3 7 6 3
Mvmt Flow 42 53 345 20 22 320
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 717 354 0 0 364 0
Stage 1 354 -----
Stage 2 363 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.61 6.31 - - 4.16 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.61 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.61 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.689 3.399 - - 2.254 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 369 670 - - 1173 -
Stage 1 670 -----
Stage 2 664 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 361 670 - - 1173 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 361 -----
Stage 1 670 -----
Stage 2 649 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.22 0 0.52

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 486 1173 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.197 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.2 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 13 6 3 47 17 28 111 8 5 70 8
Future Vol, veh/h 9 13 6 3 47 17 28 111 8 5 70 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 13 0 0 0 13 15 9 1 17 0 2 0
Mvmt Flow 10 14 7 3 51 18 30 121 9 5 76 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 298 282 80 280 282 125 85 0 0 129 0 0 Stage 1 91 91 - 186 186 -------
Stage 2 207 190 - 94 96 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.5 - 7.1 6.63 - 4.19 - - 4.1 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.5 - 6.1 5.63 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4 - 3.5 4.117 - 2.281 - - 2.2 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 633 630 0 676 609 0 1469 - - 1469 - - Stage 1 889 823 0 821 726 0 ------
Stage 2 770 747 0 918 795 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 564 614 - 644 593 - 1469 - - 1469 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 564 614 - 644 593 -------
Stage 1 870 820 - 802 710 -------
Stage 2 699 730 - 898 792 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.43 0.45

HCM LOS - -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1469 ---- 1469 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - - - 0.004 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 0 - - - 7.5 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - - 0 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 100 387 27 75 433
Future Vol, veh/h 44 100 387 27 75 433
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 6 50 10 6
Mvmt Flow 46 104 403 28 78 451
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1024 417 0 0 431 0
Stage 1 417 -----
Stage 2 607 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 - - 4.2 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 - - 2.29 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 263 640 - - 1087 -
Stage 1 669 -----
Stage 2 548 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 238 640 - - 1087 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 238 -----
Stage 1 669 -----
Stage 2 495 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v18.17 0 1.27

HCM LOS C B B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 40% 7% 6% 8%
Vol Thru, % 50% 80% 92% 73%
Vol Right, % 10% 13% 2% 19%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 142 412 265 108
LT Vol 57 30 15 9
Through Vol 71 328 244 79
RT Vol 14 54 6 20
Lane Flow Rate 154 448 288 117
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.261 0.652 0.433 0.198
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.099 5.243 5.415 6.077
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 587 690 663 587
Service Time 4.165 3.288 3.467 4.147
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.262 0.649 0.434 0.199
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 11.3 17.6 12.6 10.7
HCM Lane LOS B C B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 4.8 2.2 0.7
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 23 11 117 137 11
Future Vol, veh/h 47 23 11 117 137 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 17 3 1 0
Mvmt Flow 50 24 12 124 146 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 299 152 157 0 - 0
Stage 1 152 -----
Stage 2 148 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.27 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.353 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 696 900 1336 - - -
Stage 1 881 -----
Stage 2 885 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 690 900 1336 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 690 -----
Stage 1 873 -----
Stage 2 885 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v10.35 0.66 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1336 - 747 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.1 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 0 10.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1 Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 52 28 0 0 43
Future Vol, veh/h 15 52 28 0 0 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 57 30 0 0 47
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 30 0 - 0 120 30
Stage 1 - - - - 30 -
Stage 2 - - - - 89 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1582 - - - 876 1044
Stage 1 - - - - 992 -
Stage 2 - - - - 934 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1582 - - - 867 1044
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 867 -
Stage 1 - - - - 982 -
Stage 2 - - - - 934 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.63 0 8.61

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1582 - - - 1044
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - - 0.045
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2 Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 48 18 9 25 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 48 18 9 25 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 52 20 10 27 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 29 0 - 0 85 24
Stage 1 - - - - 24 -
Stage 2 - - - - 61 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1584 - - - 916 1052
Stage 1 - - - - 998 -
Stage 2 - - - - 962 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1584 - - - 913 1052
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 913 -
Stage 1 - - - - 995 -
Stage 2 - - - - 962 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.56 0 8.95

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1584 - - - 949
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.04
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 7: Huntsman Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 6
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 53 49 12 10 1
Future Vol, veh/h 5 53 49 12 10 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 100 0 0 38 0 0
Mvmt Flow 5 58 53 13 11 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 66 0 - 0 128 60
Stage 1 - - - - 60 -
Stage 2 - - - - 68 -
Critical Hdwy 5.1 - - - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.1 - - - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1088 - - - 871 1011
Stage 1 - - - - 968 -
Stage 2 - - - - 959 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1088 - - - 866 1011
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 866 -
Stage 1 - - - - 963 -
Stage 2 - - - - 959 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.72 0 9.16

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1088 - - - 878
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.014
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 0 - - 9.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 8: Buttonwillow Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 3 413 4 0 404
Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 413 4 0 404
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 100 6 100 0 6
Mvmt Flow 0 3 421 4 0 412
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 836 423 0 0 426 0
Stage 1 423 -----
Stage 2 412 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.4 7.2 - - 4.1 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.2 - - 2.2 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 340 466 - - 1145 -
Stage 1 665 -----
Stage 2 673 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 340 466 - - 1145 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 340 -----
Stage 1 665 -----
Stage 2 673 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.78 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 466 1145 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.007 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 12.8 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 29 385 34 35 368
Future Vol, veh/h 16 29 385 34 35 368
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 8 0 7 12 4 3
Mvmt Flow 17 30 401 35 36 383
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 875 419 0 0 436 0
Stage 1 419 -----
Stage 2 456 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.48 6.2 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.48 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.572 3.3 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 312 639 - - 1113 -
Stage 1 651 -----
Stage 2 626 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 299 639 - - 1113 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 299 -----
Stage 1 651 -----
Stage 2 600 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.82 0 0.72

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 455 1113 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.103 0.033 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.8 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 Synchro 12 Report
LSA Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 40 34 5 17 19 10 102 5 14 144 4
Future Vol, veh/h 3 40 34 5 17 19 10 102 5 14 144 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Free - - Free - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 17 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 3 43 37 5 18 21 11 111 5 15 157 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 331 327 159 344 327 114 161 0 0 116 0 0 Stage 1 189 189 - 135 135 -------
Stage 2 142 138 - 209 191 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.67 - 7.1 6.5 - 4.1 - - 4.2 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.67 - 6.1 5.5 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.153 - 3.5 4 - 2.2 - - 2.29 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 626 568 0 614 595 0 1430 - - 1424 - - Stage 1 817 716 0 873 788 0 ------
Stage 2 866 754 0 798 746 0 ------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 595 556 - 556 583 - 1430 - - 1424 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 595 556 - 556 583 -------
Stage 1 811 708 - 866 782 -------
Stage 2 839 748 - 740 737 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.64 0.65

T RAFFIC I MPACT S TUDY
DECEMBER 2023

E AST H UNTSMAN AVENUE INDUSTRIAL P ARK P ROJECT

REEDLEY , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Report\Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project TIS.docx (12/21/23)

APPENDIX E

DETAILED QUEUING WORKSHEETS
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 141 346 138 143
Average Queue (ft) 67 128 59 68
95th Queue (ft) 133 278 113 122
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 35 144
Average Queue (ft) 7 5
95th Queue (ft) 22 30
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 28 50 75 54
Average Queue (ft) 1 5 44 29
95th Queue (ft) 10 25 70 54
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 4
95th Queue (ft) 21
Link Distance (ft) 1673
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 47
Average Queue (ft) 11
95th Queue (ft) 36
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 52
Average Queue (ft) 3
95th Queue (ft) 19
Link Distance (ft) 705
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 28
Average Queue (ft) 38 5
95th Queue (ft) 66 22
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 89 31
Average Queue (ft) 23 27 1
95th Queue (ft) 47 60 11
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332 1100
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 350 160 77 100
Average Queue (ft) 240 59 52 53
95th Queue (ft) 420 145 87 102
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 17 30
Average Queue (ft) 4 11
95th Queue (ft) 15 34
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 55 31
Average Queue (ft) 5 45 25
95th Queue (ft) 22 60 45
Link Distance (ft) 5181 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 12
95th Queue (ft) 36
Link Distance (ft) 1673
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 68 73
Average Queue (ft) 25 20
95th Queue (ft) 67 68
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 31
Average Queue (ft) 37 25
95th Queue (ft) 82 45
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 80 55 153
Average Queue (ft) 40 60 40 67
95th Queue (ft) 72 89 59 148
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 41 54
Average Queue (ft) 17 25
95th Queue (ft) 39 62
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 49 54 54
Average Queue (ft) 16 35 36
95th Queue (ft) 50 51 51
Link Distance (ft) 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 31
Average Queue (ft) 6 6
95th Queue (ft) 26 27
Link Distance (ft) 1667 2585
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 26
Link Distance (ft) 415
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 25
Link Distance (ft) 412
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Type text here
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 32
Average Queue (ft) 12
95th Queue (ft) 36
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54
Average Queue (ft) 11
95th Queue (ft) 47
Link Distance (ft) 705
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 28
Average Queue (ft) 37 6
95th Queue (ft) 89 24
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 32 31
Average Queue (ft) 12 6
95th Queue (ft) 37 27
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 293 192 77 75
Average Queue (ft) 266 86 43 52
95th Queue (ft) 327 178 85 84
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 17 28
Average Queue (ft) 13 6
95th Queue (ft) 24 24
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 54
Average Queue (ft) 65 33
95th Queue (ft) 82 53
Link Distance (ft) 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 26
Link Distance (ft) 1668
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 24
95th Queue (ft) 44
Link Distance (ft) 553
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 28
95th Queue (ft) 31
Link Distance (ft) 562
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 18
95th Queue (ft) 43
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 54
Average Queue (ft) 12 11
95th Queue (ft) 35 47
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 31
Average Queue (ft) 35 18
95th Queue (ft) 47 43
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 167 138 208 136
Average Queue (ft) 101 81 127 83
95th Queue (ft) 180 162 231 134
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 36 26
Average Queue (ft) 17 5
95th Queue (ft) 36 22
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 75 72 31
Average Queue (ft) 5 26 53 31
95th Queue (ft) 22 79 74 31
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50
Average Queue (ft) 23
95th Queue (ft) 55
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 28
Average Queue (ft) 43 14
95th Queue (ft) 86 35
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 32 79
Average Queue (ft) 24 38
95th Queue (ft) 45 81
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 325 123 184 79
Average Queue (ft) 173 82 72 44
95th Queue (ft) 332 126 166 94
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 14 30
Average Queue (ft) 3 6
95th Queue (ft) 12 26
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 29 74 56
Average Queue (ft) 6 6 44 27
95th Queue (ft) 25 25 73 57
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 18
95th Queue (ft) 41
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 68
Average Queue (ft) 36
95th Queue (ft) 74
Link Distance (ft) 5130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 31
Average Queue (ft) 36 12
95th Queue (ft) 51 37
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 116 142 74 55
Average Queue (ft) 74 100 56 49
95th Queue (ft) 114 152 80 65
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 41 50
Average Queue (ft) 18 16
95th Queue (ft) 39 50
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 27 52 54 55
Average Queue (ft) 5 10 44 41
95th Queue (ft) 23 45 62 60
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 12
95th Queue (ft) 37
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 31
Average Queue (ft) 6 6
95th Queue (ft) 26 26
Link Distance (ft) 1594 369
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 27
Link Distance (ft) 367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54
Average Queue (ft) 32
95th Queue (ft) 64
Link Distance (ft) 5130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 50
Average Queue (ft) 6 29
95th Queue (ft) 25 55
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 464 251 140 104
Average Queue (ft) 354 88 84 62
95th Queue (ft) 460 226 147 102
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 16 54
Average Queue (ft) 6 17
95th Queue (ft) 19 53
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 112 54
Average Queue (ft) 10 52 43
95th Queue (ft) 43 104 63
Link Distance (ft) 5181 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30
Average Queue (ft) 18
95th Queue (ft) 41
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 24
95th Queue (ft) 45
Link Distance (ft) 369
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 25
95th Queue (ft) 45
Link Distance (ft) 367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Type text here
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 12
95th Queue (ft) 38
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 79
Average Queue (ft) 16
95th Queue (ft) 68
Link Distance (ft) 705
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 53
Average Queue (ft) 23 16
95th Queue (ft) 43 52
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 31
Average Queue (ft) 29 18
95th Queue (ft) 55 43
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 582 167 157 181
Average Queue (ft) 374 86 107 99
95th Queue (ft) 547 186 178 169
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 65 49
Average Queue (ft) 25 15
95th Queue (ft) 58 48
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 77 73 56 31
Average Queue (ft) 70 53 50 31
95th Queue (ft) 84 77 65 31
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30
Average Queue (ft) 12
95th Queue (ft) 36
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 24
95th Queue (ft) 43
Link Distance (ft) 369
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55
Average Queue (ft) 28
95th Queue (ft) 57
Link Distance (ft) 367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 80
Average Queue (ft) 16
95th Queue (ft) 68
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54
Average Queue (ft) 11
95th Queue (ft) 47
Link Distance (ft) 705
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30
Average Queue (ft) 18
95th Queue (ft) 42
Link Distance (ft) 5130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 31
Average Queue (ft) 12 6
95th Queue (ft) 38 26
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 426 77 122 123
Average Queue (ft) 243 62 91 89
95th Queue (ft) 505 81 131 129
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 28
Average Queue (ft) 20 6
95th Queue (ft) 35 24
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 94 57 78 55
Average Queue (ft) 73 46 54 36
95th Queue (ft) 102 66 79 51
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30
Average Queue (ft) 23
95th Queue (ft) 43
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78
Average Queue (ft) 33
95th Queue (ft) 75
Link Distance (ft) 369
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 24
95th Queue (ft) 45
Link Distance (ft) 367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 25
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 28
Average Queue (ft) 17 6
95th Queue (ft) 40 24
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Near Term PM Plus Project- Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 29
Average Queue (ft) 22 6
95th Queue (ft) 55 25
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 199 722 162 294
Average Queue (ft) 67 308 80 98
95th Queue (ft) 130 676 146 196
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR TR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 76 22 170
Average Queue (ft) 26 1 66
95th Queue (ft) 56 8 148
Link Distance (ft) 450 818 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 48 118 56
Average Queue (ft) 9 4 55 38
95th Queue (ft) 33 26 91 60
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 51
Average Queue (ft) 5 2
95th Queue (ft) 24 17
Link Distance (ft) 1667 2585
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 76
Average Queue (ft) 19
95th Queue (ft) 60
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50
Average Queue (ft) 9
95th Queue (ft) 35
Link Distance (ft) 705
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR TR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 106 22 29
Average Queue (ft) 52 1 3
95th Queue (ft) 94 7 17
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1091 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 68 31 30
Average Queue (ft) 18 31 4 1
95th Queue (ft) 43 64 22 10
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332 1100 2585
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 431 160 149 250
Average Queue (ft) 351 103 95 185
95th Queue (ft) 474 159 157 295
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 40 70
Average Queue (ft) 21 30
95th Queue (ft) 37 67
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 75 57
Average Queue (ft) 28 53 40
95th Queue (ft) 68 76 59
Link Distance (ft) 5181 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54
Average Queue (ft) 29
95th Queue (ft) 57
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 32
Average Queue (ft) 25
95th Queue (ft) 45
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 49
Average Queue (ft) 17
95th Queue (ft) 51
Link Distance (ft) 705
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 51 73
Average Queue (ft) 28 20
95th Queue (ft) 55 67
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM without Project 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 51 31
Average Queue (ft) 43 18
95th Queue (ft) 58 42
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 96 168 119 205
Average Queue (ft) 70 131 79 118
95th Queue (ft) 111 184 115 202
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR TR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 41 22 76
Average Queue (ft) 31 4 55
95th Queue (ft) 51 19 81
Link Distance (ft) 450 818 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 28 157 55
Average Queue (ft) 6 16 65 44
95th Queue (ft) 25 38 143 63
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 26
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55
Average Queue (ft) 17
95th Queue (ft) 54
Link Distance (ft) 369
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 28
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 25
Link Distance (ft) 367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55
Average Queue (ft) 11
95th Queue (ft) 47
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 28
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 24
Link Distance (ft) 705
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 110
Average Queue (ft) 56
95th Queue (ft) 104
Link Distance (ft) 5130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 33
Average Queue (ft) 6 31
95th Queue (ft) 27 33
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 309 76 184 144
Average Queue (ft) 239 57 94 92
95th Queue (ft) 319 83 173 148
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 65
Average Queue (ft) 27 34
95th Queue (ft) 47 60
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 53 76 76
Average Queue (ft) 6 11 54 53
95th Queue (ft) 26 45 77 77
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54
Average Queue (ft) 29
95th Queue (ft) 57
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 78
Average Queue (ft) 6 44
95th Queue (ft) 27 75
Link Distance (ft) 1594 369
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 53
Average Queue (ft) 27
95th Queue (ft) 65
Link Distance (ft) 367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29
Average Queue (ft) 12
95th Queue (ft) 35
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 54
Average Queue (ft) 34 17
95th Queue (ft) 51 53
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM Plus Project
12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 102 29 31
Average Queue (ft) 57 6 6
95th Queue (ft) 110 25 26
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332 2585
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 95 325 78 164
Average Queue (ft) 53 186 62 116
95th Queue (ft) 99 324 92 183
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR TR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 41 22 134
Average Queue (ft) 31 4 57
95th Queue (ft) 51 19 124
Link Distance (ft) 450 818 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 93 72 56
Average Queue (ft) 55 64 48 45
95th Queue (ft) 79 90 75 63
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 27
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 55
Average Queue (ft) 6 17
95th Queue (ft) 26 54
Link Distance (ft) 1594 369
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 28
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 25
Link Distance (ft) 367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55
Average Queue (ft) 11
95th Queue (ft) 47
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 28
Average Queue (ft) 6
95th Queue (ft) 24
Link Distance (ft) 705
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 110
Average Queue (ft) 51
95th Queue (ft) 101
Link Distance (ft) 5130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative AM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 33 22
Average Queue (ft) 6 31 4
95th Queue (ft) 27 33 19
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332 2585
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 1
Intersection: 1: Buttonwillow Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 421 94 148 114
Average Queue (ft) 333 54 91 90
95th Queue (ft) 429 106 170 124
Link Distance (ft) 887 5181 2367 866
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Buttonwillow Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 43 54
Average Queue (ft) 27 27
95th Queue (ft) 47 56
Link Distance (ft) 450 2367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Englehart Avenue & Dinuba Avenue
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 98 54 55 55
Average Queue (ft) 82 36 49 40
95th Queue (ft) 110 51 65 58
Link Distance (ft) 5181 861 2577 1511
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 2
Intersection: 4: Englehart Avenue & Huntsman Avenue
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54
Average Queue (ft) 29
95th Queue (ft) 57
Link Distance (ft) 1667
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 1
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78
Average Queue (ft) 44
95th Queue (ft) 75
Link Distance (ft) 369
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Huntsman Avenue & Project Driveway 2
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 53
Average Queue (ft) 27
95th Queue (ft) 65
Link Distance (ft) 367
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 3
Intersection: 7: Huntsman Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29
Average Queue (ft) 12
95th Queue (ft) 35
Link Distance (ft) 627
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Buttonwillow Avenue
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Buttonwillow Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 74
Average Queue (ft) 34 26
95th Queue (ft) 51 78
Link Distance (ft) 5130 1905
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project
Queuing and Blocking Report Cumulative PM Plus Project - Mitigation 12/21/2023 SimTraffic Report
LSA Page 4
Intersection: 10: Englehart Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 103 29
Average Queue (ft) 61 6
95th Queue (ft) 108 25
Link Distance (ft) 5130 332
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0

T RAFFIC I MPACT S TUDY
DECEMBER 2023

E AST H UNTSMAN AVENUE INDUSTRIAL P ARK P ROJECT

REEDLEY , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\Report\Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project TIS.docx (12/21/23)

APPENDIX F

DETAILED VMT CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
Huntsman Industrial VMT Analysis
12/20/2023
VMT Calculation for Warehouse
2019 Huntsman Industrial ‐ Warehouse (Project)
Total project employment (a) 541
Percent External Workers from outside (b) * 11.38%
Project external employment (c=b*a)                                                                                            62 Total Internal‐Internal (II) Work VMT  (d) ** 5,694
Internal project employment (e=a‐c)                                                                                          479 II VMT per employee (f=d/e)                                                                                      11.88 XI VMT per employee (g) *** 20.3
Total XI VMT (h=g*c)                                                                                      1,249 Total project VMT (i=d+h)                                                                                      6,944 VMT per employee (j=i/a)                                                                                        12.8 * : Obtained from "Fresno_worker_ixxifractions.dat" from model inputs. Used same percentages/values as the parent TAZ 2595 **: Includes primary work tour VMT and all work sub‐tours VMT from the ABM model run ***: XI VMT per employee was estimated as an average of all Fresno zones within the CSTDM zone 2511 (parent Fresno TAZ 2595) VMT Calculation for Office
2019 Huntsman Industrial ‐ Office (Project)
Total project employment (a) 15
Percent External Workers from outside (b) * 11.38%
Project external employment (c=b*a)                                                                                              2 Total Internal‐Internal (II) Work VMT  (d) ** 151
Internal project employment (e=a‐c)                                                                                            13 II VMT per employee (f=d/e)                                                                                      11.34 XI VMT per employee (g) *** 20.3
Total XI VMT (h=g*c)                                                                                            35 Total project VMT (i=d+h)                                                                                          185 VMT per employee (j=i/a)                                                                                        12.4 * : Obtained from "Fresno_worker_ixxifractions.dat" from model inputs. Used same percentages/values as the parent TAZ 2595 **: Includes primary work tour VMT and all work sub‐tours VMT from the ABM model run ***: XI VMT per employee was estimated as an average of all Fresno zones within the CSTDM zone 2511 (parent Fresno TAZ 2595) Appendix F
Detailed VMT Calculation Worksheet
P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\Traffic\huntsman_vmt.xlsx (12/20/2023)

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 202 4

E AST H UNTSMAN AVENUE INDUSTRIAL P ARK P ROJECT

REEDLEY , C ALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
1 CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 112, Clovis, California 93611 559.490.1210 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 6, 2024
TO: Rodney L. Horton, Community Development Director, City of Reedley FROM: Kyle Simpson, Principal
SUBJECT: East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments
In accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed environmental document together with any comments received during the public review process. Although there is no legal requirement to formally respond to comments on a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as there is for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), this memorandum provides responses to the written comments received on the proposed East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project (proposed project) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to aid the City of Reedley (City) decision-makers in their review of the proposed Project.

The Draft IS/MND was available for public review and comment from January 29, 2024, to February 27, 2024. Three comment letters were received on the IS/MND. At this time, the City is responding to one comment letter. In the following pages, specific comments and sections of that comment letter are enumerated and reproduced. Following each enumerated comment, a response addressing the specific comment is provided. As noted above, CEQA does not require or provide guidance on responding to comments on MNDs; therefore, this memorandum follows CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, applicable to responses to comments on EIRs, which requires that agencies respond only to significant environmental issues raised in connection with the proposed Project. Therefore, this document focuses primarily on responding to comments that relate to the adequacy of the information and environmental analysis provided in the IS/MND.

Section A of this memorandum identifies the comment letter received during the comment period.

Section B includes a reproduction of each enumerated comment followed by responses to each comment. Section C of this memorandum provides identifies all text changes to the IS/MND made in response to the comments received during the public review period for the Draft IS/MND.

A. COMMENT LETTER
The comment letter listed below was submitted to the City regarding the IS/MND.

LETTER 1
Advocates for the Environment
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 2 Dean Wallraff
February 27, 2024
B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This memorandum includes a reproduction of the comment letter received during the public review period for the IS/MND. Individual comments within the comment letter are numbered consecutively, with the full comment letter attached to this memorandum.

Please note that text within the comment letter that has not been numbered does not raise environmental issues or relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis within the IS/MND and, therefore, no comment is enumerated or response required, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

Responses to the comments included below were prepared with the assistance from Cara Cunningham, an Associate/Senior Environmental Planner at LSA that specializes in air quality and energy technical analysis. Ms. Cunningham is an Associate/Senior Environmental Planner with over 10 years of experience. At LSA, she provides project management and technical assistance on a variety of planning and environmental documents including Environmental Assessments, Initial Studies, and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). Ms. Cunningham has a strong foundation in land use planning and is well versed in addressing impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and energy. Ms. Cunningham is proficient in air quality models, including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and the Roadway Emissions Estimator Model (RoadMod).

LETTER 1
Advocates for the Environment
Dean Wallraff
February 27, 2024
Comment 1-1: Dear Mr. Horton:

Advocates for the Environment submits the comments in this letter regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project (Project). The project site is located along the north side of East Huntsman Avenue in the City of Reedley (City).

The project proposes to develop a 26-lot industrial park on the 42-acre project site.

Advocates for the Environment is a public interest law firm and advocacy organization with the mission to educate the public about the law as it pertains to the environment and provide legal services in support of environmental causes. We have reviewed the MND released in January 2024, and submit comments regarding the sufficiency of the MND’s Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Response 1-1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and describes the proposed Project but does not provide specific comments on the adequacy of the analysis included in the IS/MND. No further response is necessary. 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 3 Comment 1-2: The City Should Require the Project to be Net-Zero Given the current regulatory context and technological advancements, a net-zero significance threshold is feasible and extensively supportable. GHG emissions from buildings, including indirect emissions from offsite generation of electricity, direct emissions produced onsite, and from construction with cement and steel, amounted to 21% of global GHG emissions in 2019. (IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2022, WGIII, Mitigation of Climate Change, p. 9-4.) This is a considerable portion of global GHG emissions. It is much more affordable to construct new building projects to be net-zero than to obtain the same level of GHG reductions by expensively retrofitting older buildings to comply with climate change regulations. Climate damages will keep increasing until we reach net zero GHG emissions, and there is a California state policy requiring the state to be net-zero by 2045. It therefore is economically unsound to construct new buildings that are not netzero.

Environmental groups have achieved tremendous outcomes by litigation under CEQA. Two of the largest mixed-use development projects in the history of California, Newhall Ranch (now FivePoint Valencia), and Centennial (part of Tejon Ranch) decided to move forward as net-zero communities after losing CEQA lawsuits to environmental groups. The ability for these large projects to become net-zero indicates that it is achievable, even for large-scale developments. The Applicant for this Project should do the same.

We urge the City to adopt net-zero as the GHG significance threshold for this project. This threshold is well-supported by plans for the reduction of GHG emissions in California, and particularly the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plans. The CARB 2017 Scoping Plan states that “achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development.” (CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, p. 101.) Additionally, the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan reaffirms the necessity of a net zero target by expressing: “it is clear that California must transition away from fossil fuels to zero-emission technologies with all possible speed … in order to meet our GHG and air quality targets.” (CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, p.184.) CARB further encourages a net-zero threshold in its strategies for local actions in Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan. (CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D p. 24-26.) Moving this Project forward as a net-zero project would not only be the right thing for the City to do, but also would also help protect the City and the Applicant from CEQA GHG litigation.

Response 1-2: The City, as the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project, has the discretion to select and develop appropriate thresholds of significance to analyze a project's environmental impacts, or rely on thresholds developed by other agencies that it deems applies to a project. In addition, the State’s CEQA Guidelines leaves the determination of the significance of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions up to the lead agency and authorizes the lead agency to consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4(a) and 15064.7(c)). The State CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 4 methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA.1
As discussed on pages 3-45 and 3-46 of the IS/MND, per the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that meets the specified standards, it can be presumed that a project would not have significant GHG emission impacts. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)2 was adopted in 2015 to reduce local community GHG emissions, consistent with the State objectives set forth in Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The City’s CAP was updated in 2020 to identify tools to meet the City’s 2020 and future 2030 reduction goals. As detailed on page 3-46 of the IS/MND, the City’s CAP meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the city, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. In accordance with CEQA, the City made a good-faith effort to evaluate the proposed project’s GHG emissions based on the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s CAP.

Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions in Appendix D, Local Actions3 , of
the 2022 Scoping Plan. As discussed in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, it is important to design targets in ways that support overall State goals, recognizing that each region has distinctive sources and systems. For instance, energy and transportation systems that serve Californians do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries, and some decisions can have ramifications for other communities (e.g., by inadvertently exporting emissions from a jurisdiction with a net-zero target to another jurisdiction with less stringent or no target).

Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan states that jurisdictions considering a net-zero target should carefully consider the implications it may have on emissions in neighboring communities and beyond. Jurisdictions should also avoid creating targets that are impossible to meet as a basis to determine significance. For example, a net-zero target may imply that the GHG emissions of any project that are not reduced or offset to zero would be considered potentially significant. This may lead to undue burdens and frustrate the project approval processes, which may be particularly problematic for projects in climate-smart areas. In addition, some jurisdictions have more land capacity to remove and store carbon, while others host GHG-emitting facilities that serve necessary functions and will take time to transition to new technology (e.g., municipal wastewater treatment plants, landfills, energy generation facilities). In those cases, jurisdictions that work together on a regional framework to rapidly decarbonize together may have better success in maximizing both emission reductions and other benefits. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan states that 1 California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Update. 2 City of Reedley. 2019. City of Reedley Climate Action Plan. Website: https://reedley.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/reedleyweb/2019/12/City-of-Reedley-Climate-Action-Plan.pdf (accessed November 2023). 3 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D Local Actions. November.

Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf (accessed February 2024).
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 5 ultimately, a net-zero target that makes it more difficult to achieve Statewide goals by prohibiting or complicating projects that are needed to support the State’s climate goals, like infill development or solar arrays. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect that the 2022 Scoping Plan requires a net zero threshold.

Additionally, as further discussed in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan, local governments have the discretion to adopt targets that apply to their jurisdictions and may utilize the streamlining functions afforded in CEQA so long as those targets are supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the City, as the lead agency for the proposed project, has selected consistency with the City’s CAP as the thresholds of significance to evaluate the proposed project’s potential GHG emissions impact. This is an appropriate threshold as the City’s CAP was designed to support the State’s long-term carbon neutrality goals, and by demonstrating consistency with the City’s CAP the project is also shown to be consistent with State goals and policies.

Comment 1-3: Inadequate and Unstable Project Description CEQA requires a stable and consistent project description that properly discloses the necessary information for the public and decision-makers to understand fundamental aspects of the project.

Here, the Project description was inadequate or otherwise inconsistent with the body of the MND because the greenhouse gas analysis within the MND mentioned that the Project would include a pistachio processing facility which is discussed nowhere else in the MND. The project description and characteristics discussed 26 lots with various buildings of different sizes, primarily for office/warehouse or office/retail, which is inconsistent with the statement on page 3-49 that the Project would involve a pistachio processing facility. (MND, p. 3-49.) The City should not be able to rely on such information in the greenhouse gas analysis which is inconsistent with the rest of the MND, including the project description.

Response 1-3: The reference to the pistachio plant was a typographical error. The proposed project was evaluated consistent with the Project Description and included 351,560 square feet of industrial park uses and a 705-space parking lot in the CalEEMod analysis. As such, the analysis contained with the GHG section of the IS/MND was based on the Project Description and did not evaluate a pistachio plant. As such, the text on page 3-49 of the IS/MND has been revised as follows:

The proposed project would not interfere with the Fresno COG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reductions. Furthermore, the proposed project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it would not conflict with the 2022 RTP targets since those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level. The proposed project would include an industrial parka pistachio processing facility. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2022 RTP. In addition, the proposed project would not include residential uses that would increase population.

Therefore, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with Fresno COG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the 2022 RTP.
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 6 These revisions do not result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a greater severity than those set forth in the IS/MND. Further, the clarifications and corrections provided in these revisions do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the IS/MND.

Comment 1-4: GHG Significance Analysis
The MND adopted two significance thresholds based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Overall, the MND concluded that the Project’s GHG emissions are less than significant. Given the inadequacy of analysis under both sections, there is a fair argument for why the Project would have a significant impact under both of these thresholds. A significant impact under either threshold would require a finding of significant impact.

Response 1-4: As discussed in Response 1-3 above, the proposed project was evaluated consistent with the Project Description and included 351,560 square feet of industrial park uses and a 705-space parking lot in the CalEEMod analysis. As such, the analysis contained with the GHG section was based on the Project Description and did not evaluate a pistachio plant.

Additionally, as discussed in Response 1-2 above, the City, as the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project, has the discretion to select and develop appropriate thresholds of significance to analyze a project's environmental impacts, or rely on thresholds developed by other agencies that it deems applies to a project. In addition, the State CEQA Guidelines leaves the determination of the significance of GHG emissions up to the lead agency and authorizes the lead agency to consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4(a) and 15064.7(c)). As discussed on pages 3-45 and 3-46 of the IS/MND, the City’s CAP meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the city, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Therefore, the analysis evaluates the GHG emissions based on the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s CAP.

As demonstrated on pages 3-45 through 3-47 of the IS/MND, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project’s reduction from the CAP reduction measures would be 34.31 percent, which is higher than the required 20 percent reduction required by the CAP. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP. The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The commenter does not demonstrate a fair argument, based on substantial evidence, for a contrary conclusion. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(5).)
Comment 1-5: The City’s Analysis of CAP Compliance is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 7 Threshold (a), asks whether the Project would “generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.” (MND, p. 3-43.) Under this threshold, the City concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact because, after quantifying the Project’s annual GHG emissions at approximately 4,703.3 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, the City indicated that the Project would adhere to the local Climate Action Plan (CAP) such that it would be deemed a less-thansignificant GHG impact. (MND, p. 3-45.) However, the Project would conflict with the local CAP, making the Project the source of a significant GHG impact. In particular, the CAP requires that projects in the City of Reedley meet a 20% reduction in GHG emissions, which the record was unable to demonstrate. The CAP lists GHG reduction measures, as well as an “average” suggested reduction. Yet, the requirement under the CAP is to demonstrate a 20% reduction of the project, and here the CALEEMod outputs demonstrate that the average reductions could not be achieved, even when the reduction measures are implemented.

Therefore, the Project cannot rely on the average reductions as listed in Table 3.8.B because there is evidence it would not be able to achieve these levels of reductions. The City claims that by implementing photovoltaic solar energy for at least 20% of the project’s energy needs, it would achieve a 17% reduction in overall Project emissions. Yet, the CalEEMod outputs belie this conclusion, because even if 20% of the 1,525 energy-related emissions were being reduced through solar power, it would only amount to 6.5% reduction of overall Project emissions. 1 Likewise, installing an energy star rated water heater would only amount to Project emission reductions of 4.5%, far below the average assumption of 12%. 2With these more accurate
metrics in mind—that the City should have considered instead of the averages—all of the CAP GHG reduction measures that the Project would implement combined would contribute to less than the 20% reductions required by the CAP.3
And this is assuming that the remaining reduction measures would achieve the purported reductions, which is unlikely because the particular impacts which they target (i.e., energy efficiency and water usage) are not large in comparison to the Project’s mobile emissions. EV charging stations is the only GHG Reduction Measures which could potentially address this source of emissions but would not address the emissions from heavy duty vehicles, which account for 2,468 MTCO2e. (See Appendix A, CalEEMod Output Sheets, Heavy Heavy Duty Truck Trips Custom Report.) Further, the City cannot sincerely rely on planting shade trees to reduce 2% of the Project’s emissions because the CalEEMod Output does not include vegetationrelated emissions estimates.

Even if the Project is consistent with the requirement of 20% GHG reduction based on the CAP Compliance Checklist, this is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. In particular, even after a reduction of 20% of the Project’s emissions, the Project would still emit 3,762.64 MTCO2e. 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 8 This new source of emissions far exceeds the CO2e emissions from the entire City of Reedley in 2005, the baseline year from which the 2030 goal of 50% CO2e reduction is derived.5 Accordingly, there is no evidence that adhering to the requirements of the CAP would adequately account for the goals therein. Furthermore, there is no evidence that adherence with the CAP would reduce the Project’s emissions to a less-than-significant level.

Response 1-5: As discussed on page 3-45 of the IS/MND, per the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, it can be presumed that a project would not have significant GHG emission impacts. The City’s CAP meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the city, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The City’s CAP provided the substantial evidence demonstrating the appropriateness of the CAP methodology.

The commenter claims that implementation of the CAP reduction measures would not result in a 20 percent reduction in the proposed project’s GHG emissions. As stated on page 17 of the City’s CAP, the City must reduce GHG emissions by 50 percent to meet the State mandated 2030 near-term emission reduction goal. To ensure that future developments within City limits also achieve the City’s GHG reduction goals, the City has compiled a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Compliance Checklist to enable projects within City limits to “self-certify” that their project meets the required 20 percent reduction. As stated in the CAP, project applicants must demonstrate through completion of this checklist, how projects will comply with the 20 percent reduction. The CAP Reduction Compliance Checklist (Appendix A of the CAP) includes recommended GHG reduction measures and average reductions (in percentage). For example, as demonstrated in the City’s CAP Reduction Compliance Checklist (Appendix A of the CAP), implementing photovoltaic systems that provide 20-49 percent of power needs would result in an average reduction of 17 percent of GHG emissions. As stated above, the City’s CAP provided the substantial evidence demonstrating the appropriateness of the CAP methodology. Therefore, it is appropriate to rely on the City’s CAP for the GHG analysis.

Table 3.8.B in the IS/MND shows the GHG reduction measures from the CAP GHG Reduction Checklist that the proposed project would incorporate to meet the 20 percent reduction threshold. As demonstrated in Table 3.8.B, the proposed project’s consistency with many of the CAP GHG reduction measures would be determined by design decisions that are currently not evident from the conceptual plans evaluated for the environmental analysis in this report. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require the proposed project to include the applicable measures, as identified in the CAP GHG Reduction Checklist. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project’s reduction from the CAP reduction measures would be 34.31 percent, which is higher than the required 20 percent reduction. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP. The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 9 As such, since the proposed project has demonstrated consistency with the CAP’s requirements, consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, the proposed project would not have significant GHG emission impact and no further analysis is necessary.

Comment 1-6: And this is assuming that the remaining reduction measures would achieve the purported reductions, which is unlikely because the particular impacts which they target (i.e., energy efficiency and water usage) are not large in comparison to the Project’s mobile emissions. EV charging stations is the only GHG Reduction Measures which could potentially address this source of emissions but would not address the emissions from heavy duty vehicles, which account for 2,468 MTCO2e. (See Appendix A, CalEEMod Output Sheets, Heavy Heavy Duty Truck Trips Custom Report.) Further, the City cannot sincerely rely on planting shade trees to reduce 2% of the Project’s emissions because the CalEEMod Output does not include vegetation-related emissions estimates.

Even if the Project is consistent with the requirement of 20% GHG reduction based on the CAP Compliance Checklist, this is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. In particular, even after a reduction of 20% of the Project’s emissions, the Project would still emit 3,762.64 MTCO2e. This new source of emissions far exceeds the CO2e emissions from the entire City of Reedley in 2005, the baseline year from which the 2030 goal of 50% CO2e reduction is derived. Accordingly, there is no evidence that adhering to the requirements of the CAP would adequately account for the goals therein. Furthermore, there is no evidence that adherence with the CAP would reduce the Project’s emissions to a less-than-significant level.

Response 1-6: Refer to Response 1-2 and Response 1-5, above. The City’s CAP meets the requirements for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in the city, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Therefore, the analysis evaluates the GHG emissions based on the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s CAP.

Table 3.8.B in the IS/MND shows the GHG reduction measures from the CAP GHG Reduction Checklist that the proposed project would incorporate to meet the 20 percent reduction threshold. In addition, as demonstrated on pages 3-45 through 3-47 of the IS/MND, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project’s reduction from the CAP reduction measures would be 34.31 percent, which is higher than the required 20 percent reduction. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP.

The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The commenter does not demonstrate a fair argument, based on substantial evidence, for a contrary conclusion. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(5).)
Additionally, the commenter claims that the proposed project’s GHG emissions exceed the CO2e emissions from the entire City of Reedley in 2005. The City’s CAP provides the 2005 baseline GHG emissions associated with the City of Reedley government operations only, not the total GHG emissions in the City. These baseline 2005 emissions totaled 2,360 metric tons of CO2e per year; however, they are only representative of the following sources: city 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 10 owned facility lighting, waste water treatment plant, City Hall, Royal Valley Building, and Community Center, two diesel trucks, and a front loader. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the proposed project’s GHG emissions exceed the CO2e emissions from the entire City of Reedley in 2005.

Comment 1-7: Consistency with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations The City only considered only two applicable plans: the 2022 Scoping Plan from the California Resources Board (2022 Scoping Plan) and Fresno COG’s 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (Fresno RTP) when it concluded less-than-significant impact. (MND, p. 47-49.) This significance analysis violates CEQA by being deficient and misleading in several areas.

The Project does not comply with the Fresno RTP as the City contends. The City did not adequately analyze the Fresno RTP but summarily dismissed the potential for conflict with the Fresno RTP because the Project would purportedly include a pistachio processing facility. This would purportedly make the Project consistent with the growth assumptions in the Fresno RTP. Even if this were true, this assertion is insufficient to demonstrate that the Project would be consistent with the Fresno RTP as a whole. The RTP sets numerous goals and identifies implementing parties, as well as the timeframe in which those goals should be accomplished (short-term or long term). The RTP thus indicates which goals are to be accomplished, in part, by “cities,” which would include the City of Reedley. Such goals include encouraging alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), supporting electric vehicle infrastructure development, among other specific actions that should be taken by cities (RTP Chapter 4, p. 5-10).

Although information is lacking due to an inadequate discussion of consistency with the Fresno RTP, there is a fair argument that the Project would not adhere to the standards set by the Fresno RTP because there is no mention of aiming to reduce single- occupancy vehicle trips or supporting electric vehicle infrastructure anywhere in the MND.

Response 1-7: Refer to Response 1-3 above. As previously noted, the reference to the pistachio plant was a typographical error. The proposed project was evaluated consistent with the Project Description and included 351,560 square feet of industrial park uses and a 705-space parking lot in the CalEEMod analysis. As discussed on page 3-49 of the IS/MND, the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) reflects transportation planning for Fresno County through 2046. The 2022 RTP contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as forecast development that is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data. As such, the proposed industrial uses would not increase population in the region and would not conflict with the growth assumptions used in the 2022 RTP. In response to this comment, text on page 3-49 of the IS/MND has been revised as follows:

The proposed project would not interfere with the Fresno COG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reductions. Furthermore, the proposed project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it would not conflict with the 2022 RTP targets since those targets were established and are 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 11 applicable on a regional level. The proposed project would include an industrial parka pistachio processing facility. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the 2022 RTP. In addition, the proposed project would not include residential uses that would increase population.

Therefore, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with Fresno COG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the 2022 RTP.

These revisions do not result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a greater severity than those set forth in the IS/MND. Further, the clarifications and corrections provided in these revisions do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the IS/MND.

In addition, as demonstrated on pages 3-85 and 3-86 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would result in a less than significant VMT impact concerning consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). In addition, as discussed on page 3-46 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen standards, including providing on-site electric vehicle (EV) charging, consistent with the goals of the RTP. In addition, consistent with the City’s General Plan policies, the proposed project would implement multi-modal improvements, including the construction of pedestrian sidewalks along the project frontage with Huntsman Avenue, consistent with the goals of the RTP. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the proposed project would be inconsistent with the Fresno COG’s RTP.

Comment 1-8: In relation to the RTP’s goal of reducing VMT, the Project’s VMT analysis insufficient to demonstrate consistency with the RTP. In particular, the MND states that the Project’s 555 employees would create 2,652,707 VMT per year based on 691 vehicle trips. (MND, p. 3-36 (VMT); 3-76 (Employees); 3-13 (Vehicle Trips)). Yet, the MND does not provide evidence in the record that the project would only generate 691 average daily trips because it did not provide what factors went into that estimate, such as the number of working days each year and the amount of carpooling or alternative transportation anticipated (MND, p. 3-13). The discussion of VMT within the MND does not provide enough information to indicate that it would be consistent with the RTP as the City suggests.

Moreover, the MND does not discuss the truck trips in the context of VMT. The Project would involve about 174 truck trips,6 each 40 miles per day, amounting to an extra 6,960 VMT per day. (MND, p. 3-13.) Accordingly, the per-capita metric, including truck trips, would be 25.63, which demonstrates no reduction below the baseline regional average. (MND, p. 3-86). While this may not change the significance in the context of transportation impact, it has drastic implications in terms of assessing the air quality and GHG impact, which accounted for a default vehicle fleet assumption rather than the parameters of this project in which there are many heavy-duty truck trips. (MND, p. 3-36.) Conflict with a single applicable plan is sufficient to find that the chosen threshold is not met, and therefore the City should have found a significant GHG impact due to conflict with the Fresno RTP.
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 12 Response 1-8: As discussed on page 3-13 of the IS/MND, the air quality analysis utilized the proposed project’s trip generation estimate (as identified in Section 4.17, Transportation), which assumes the proposed project would generate 691 average daily trips, including 517 passenger cars, 38 two-axle trucks, 31 three-axle trucks, and 105 four+-axle trucks. As discussed on page 3-84 of the IS/MND, project trip generation has been developed using the rates for Land Use 150 – “Warehousing“, and Land Use 710 – “General Office Building” from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition).

Further, the commenter is incorrect that the air quality and GHG analysis utilized a default vehicle fleet assumption rather than the parameters of this project in which there are many heavy-duty truck trips. As stated on page 3-13 of the IS/MND, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate operational emissions associated with the proposed project. The CalEEMod analysis assumes that the four+-axle truck trips would travel approximately 40 miles. This trip length is a conservative assumption designed to be representative of longer haul trips, even though some heavy-duty truck trips would be much shorter than 40 miles. To be conservative, separate CalEEMod analyses were prepared for the operational analysis for the proposed project. One CalEEMod run evaluated operational and vehicle trip emissions and another CalEEMod run evaluated four+-axle truck trip emissions. Therefore, the modeling is conservative as it increases the percentage of medium heavy duty truck trips from the default 1.26% to 5.29% and increases the percentage of heavy heavy duty (HHD) truck trips from the default of 2.15% to assume 15.20% consistent with the trip generation prepared for the proposed project. Further, the modeling increases the HHD trip length from the default lengths of 5.17 miles, 6.13 miles, and 5.36 miles to 40 miles consistent which is a conservative assumption. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the modeling included a default fleet assumption. This analysis is adequate as presented.

In addition, refer to Response 1-3 and Response 1-7, above. The 2022 RTP contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as forecast development that is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data. Therefore, the proposed industrial uses would not increase population in the region and would not conflict with the growth assumptions used in the 2022 RTP. Additionally, as demonstrated on pages 3-85 and 3-86 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would result in a less than significant VMT impact concerning consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). As discussed on page 3-46 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen standards, including providing on-site EV charging, consistent with the goals of the RTP. Furthermore, consistent with the City’s General Plan policies, the proposed project would implement multi-modal improvements, including the construction of pedestrian sidewalks along the project frontage with Huntsman Avenue, consistent with the goals of the RTP. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the proposed project would conflict with the Fresno COG’s RTP.

Comment 1-9: Further, although the MND included a discussion of consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, the Project would conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets a goal for 50% of all industrial energy demand to be electrified by 2045 (2022 CARB Scoping Plan, p. 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 13 77). The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan also places particular emphasis on decarbonizing industrial facilities by “displacing fossil fuel use with a mix of electrification, solar thermal heat, biomethane, low- or zero carbon hydrogen, and other low-carbon fuels to provide energy for heat and reduce combustion emissions” (2022 CARB Scoping Plan, p. 208). And one of the principal goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan is to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2045. The Project is inconsistent with these goals because it would create an additional large source of emissions from nonrenewable sources, contrary to the statewide electrification and decarbonization contemplated by the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Therefore, by the City’s own adopted significance threshold and chosen plans, the Project would have a significant GHG impact.

Response 1-9: The commenter claims that the proposed project is inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. As explained in Response I-10 below, the proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen building measures and 2022 Title 24 Standards. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with State building code requirements as Title 24 advances to implement the building decarbonization goals by 2045 from the 2022 Scoping Plan. Further, future tenants at the project site would be required to comply with the CARB Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, which has a goal of achieving a zero-emission California truck and bus fleet by 2045.

Therefore, the IS/MND properly determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions, and the commenter has not presented evidence to the contrary.

Comment 1-10: The MND Did Not Analyze Other Applicable Plans The City chose, as its second GHG threshold, Threshold (b), which asks whether the Project would “[c]onflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.” (MND, p. 3-47.) This language requires that the MND analyze the Project’s consistency with all other applicable plans, not just the plans that the City prefers to analyze.

The MND accounted for a building lifespan of 30 years. (MND, p. 3-44) Due to construction anticipated from 2025 to 2026, (MND, p. 3-11) the Project will likely be operating well into 2056.

Accordingly, the Project must show consistency with long-term State GHG goals to comply with CEQA. In particular, the MND must also demonstrate consistency with Executive Order B-55-18 (EO B-55-18) and the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan.

EO B-55-18 requires the State of California to achieve carbon neutrality—net zero GHG emissions— by 2045. The Project is inconsistent with EO B-55-18 because it does not prohibit the use of gasoline, diesel, and natural gas, and burning such non-renewable fuels results in substantial GHG emissions.

In particular, the trucks anticipated in this Project use diesel fuel—estimated at 24,824 gallons per year—which would emit high quantities of GHGs, preventing the Project from ever achieving carbon neutrality.
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 14 Response 1-10: First, the commenter states that the IS/MND accounted for a building lifespan of 30 years. As discussed on page 3-44 of the IS/MND, the 30-year lifespan was only used to amortize the construction emissions. The amortized construction emissions were added to the operational GHG emissions.

Further, as stated on page 3-47 of the IS/MND, the discussion under Threshold (b) evaluates the proposed project for consistency with the goals of Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32, AB 197, and AB 1279, and the 2022 Scoping Plan.

EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B-30-15. CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 keeps the State on the path toward achieving the 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to the CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016. AB 1279 was signed in September of 2022, and codifies the State goals of achieving net carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative GHG emissions thereafter. This bill also requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 85 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2045 and directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to achieve these goals.

The 2022 Scoping Plan4 assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.

The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon-neutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero-carbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan states that in almost all sectors, electrification will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping Plan evaluates clean energy and technology options and the transition away from fossil fuels, including adding four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N-79-20 requires that all new passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero-emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transitioned to zero4 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.

December. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf (accessed November 2023).
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 15 emission as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.

Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, established by the CEC, regarding energy conservation and green building standards. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable energy measures.

Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 standards of the CCR, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.

The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The second phase of Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025, resulting in a 3 percent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all vehicles by 2020. Vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the plans and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, including the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, EO B30-15, SB 32, and AB 1279.

The commenter claims that the analysis must also demonstrate consistency EO B-55-18 and the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan. Executive Order B-55-18 sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” Executive Order B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. As discussed above, AB 1279 codifies the State goals of achieving net carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative GHG emissions thereafter. This bill also requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 85 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2045 and directs CARB to work with relevant State agencies to achieve these goals. As such, since the proposed project demonstrated consistency with AB 1279, the proposed project would also be consistent with EO B-55-18. 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 16 Additionally, the commenter is incorrect that the analysis must demonstrate consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan, as this plan was superseded by the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan as the most recent Scoping Plan that built upon the goals included in the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan. As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the most recent State goals and policies for GHG emissions reductions. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen building measures and 2022 Title 24 Standards. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with State building code requirements as Title 24 advances to implement the building decarbonization goals by 2045 in support of the goals included in the 2022 Scoping Plan and codified in recent State legislation. This analysis is adequate as presented.

Comment 1-11: The 2017 Scoping Plan was developed to facilitate California’s compliance with SB 32, which requires statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. (Health & Safety Code § 38566.) The MND did not discuss how the Project is consistent with any of the goals, including the 2050 goal of 80% below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan also sets out statewide goals for total GHG emissions targets of 6 MTCO2e/capita by 2030, and 2 MTCO2e/capita by 2050 (CARB Scoping Plan, p. 99).

With the Project’s annual GHG emissions at 4,703.3 MTCO2e annually and 555 employees, the Project’s per-service population GHG emissions would be approximately 8.47 MTCO2e/capita, which exceeds the 2030 and is over four times the 2050 target, which would have to be achieved well within the Project’s lifespan to be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan.7 Thus, the Project’s GHG impact is significant under the second threshold because it is inconsistent with applicable plans for the reduction of GHGs.

Response 1-11: Refer to Response 1-10 above. The commenter is incorrect that the analysis must demonstrate consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan. The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan is the most recent Scoping Plan, and as explained above, the proposed project would comply with the latest CALGreen building measures and 2022 Title 24 Standards. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with State building code requirements as Title 24 advances to implement the building decarbonization goals by 2045 from the 2022 Scoping Plan. This analysis is adequate as presented.

Comment 1-12: The City Should Have Prepared an EIR
No mitigation measures were considered for GHGs due to the erroneous determination of less-thansignificant impact. However, because the City should have found significant impact for GHG emissions based on inconsistency with applicable plans, it should update its findings accordingly and would therefore be required to create a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and mitigate to the extent required by CEQA.

If the City had used appropriate significant thresholds and accurate analysis, it would have concluded that the Project’s GHG emissions are significant. Inconsistency with applicable plans for the reduction of GHG emissions supports a fair argument that the Project would have a significant environmental effect. Because the above discussion provides a fair argument that the Project may 3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 17 have significant GHG impacts, the City must prepare an EIR. Therefore, the City was mistaken in its choice to create an MND for a Project that would likely create such a considerable GHG impact.

Response 1-12: The analysis of GHG impacts contained in the IS/MND is supported by substantial evidence. As described on page 3-45 of the IS/MND, Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers: (1) the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether a project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to a project; and (3) the extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

In accordance with CEQA, the City made a good-faith effort to evaluate the proposed project’s GHG emissions based on the City’s CAP. Consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Plan that meets the standards, the lead agency may presume that a project would not have significant GHG emission impacts.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP. As such, identification and analysis of additional mitigation measures would not be required to reduce emissions to a less than significant level.

The commenter is incorrect that an EIR must be prepared. As discussed above, with implementation of the Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts. The commenter has not shown a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that the proposed project may cause a significant impact. Therefore, preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 1-13: Conclusion
For the reasons given in this letter, the MND is not in conformance with CEQA requirements.

Notably, the MND failed as an informational document for decision makers and the public, the significance analysis was inadequate, and the City should have concluded that the Project would contribute to a significant GHG impact.

Please put Advocates for the Environment on the interest list to receive updates about the progress of this Project.
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 18 Response 1-13: This comment provides a conclusion to the arguments raised in the comment letter, states the commenter’s opinion that the analysis in the IS/MND is inadequate, and that the City should have determined project GHG impacts to be significant.

This comment also requests that Advocates for the Environment be placed on the interested parties list to receive updates on the proposed project. This comment does not provide specific comments on the adequacy of the analysis included in the IS/MND. No further response is necessary.

C. TEXT CHANGES TO THE IS/MND
In response to the comments included above, this memorandum provides minor revisions to the IS/MND that are being made to clarify, correct, or amplify materials in the IS/MND. The text do any revisions identified below do not result in new information, a greater number of impacts, or impacts of a greater severity than those set forth in the IS/MND.

Double-underlined text represents language that has been added to the IS/MND, and text with strikethrough represents language that has been deleted from the IS/MND.

Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact discussion 3.8.1.b, on page 3-49 of the IS/MND, is amended as follows:

ATTACHMENT

PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER
3/6/24 (P:\20231045.02 Huntsman\PRODUCTS\RTC\Admin\Huntsman_RTC_Memo-Final.docx) 20 This page intentionally left blank
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] February 27, 2024
Rodney Horton
Community Development Director
City of Reedley
1733 9th Street
Reedley, CA 93654
Via U.S. Mail and email to [email protected] re: Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for the East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project, SCH No. 2024010923
Dear Mr. Horton:

Advocates for the Environment submits the comments in this letter regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the East Huntsman Avenue Industrial Park Project (Project). The Project Site is located along the north side of East Huntsman Avenue in the City of Reedley (City).

The Project proposes to develop a 26-lot industrial park on the 42-acre project site.

The City Should Require the Project to be Net-Zero
Given the current regulatory context and technological advancements, a net-zero significance threshold is feasible and extensively supportable. GHG emissions from buildings, including indirect emissions from offsite generation of electricity, direct emissions produced onsite, and from construction with cement and steel, amounted to 21% of global GHG emissions in 2019. (IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2022, WGIII, Mitigation of Climate Change, p. 9-4.) This is a considerable portion of global GHG emissions. It is much more affordable to construct new building projects to be net-zero than to obtain the same level of GHG reductions by expensively retrofitting older buildings to comply with climate change regulations. Climate damages will keep increasing until we reach net zero GHG emissions, and there is a California state policy requiring the state to be netzero by 2045. It therefore is economically unsound to construct new buildings that are not net-zero.

Page 1 of 7 ends

Reedley City CouncilApril 9, 2024

Reedley City Council
April 9, 2024