Agenda Packet — Salinas City Council, September 6, 2022 (part 2 of 5)

BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information
Analyst KC Highway/Direction of Travel US 101 NB
Agency or Company Fehr & Peers From/To Boronda to Russell Date Performed July 2010 Jurisdiction Salinas
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Cumulative Scenario Project Description Cumulative With Project Conditions
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data
Flow Inputs
Volume, V 4967 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91
AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR0
Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level
DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Driver type adjustment 1.00 Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustments
fp

1.00 ER1.2
ET

1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT
(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.976
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFS
Lane Width 12.0 ft
Rt-Shoulder Lat. Clearance 6.0 ft
Interchange Density 1.12 I/mi
Number of Lanes, N 2
FFS (measured) mi/h
Base free-flow Speed, BFFS 70.0 mi/h
fLW 0.0 mi/h
fLC 0.0 mi/h
fID 3.1 mi/h
fN

4.5 mi/h
FFS 62.4 mi/h
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)
vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x
f
p
)
2797 pc/h/ln
S mi/h
D = vp / S pc/mi/ln
LOS F
Design (N)
Design LOS
vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x
f
p
)
pc/h
S mi/h
D = vp / S pc/mi/ln
Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor Location
N - Number of lanes S - Speed
V - Hourly volume D - Density
vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed
LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed
DDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits23-8, 23-10 fLW - Exhibit 23-4
ET
- Exhibits 23-8, 23-10, 23-11 fLC - Exhibit 23-5
f
p
- Page 23-12 fN
- Exhibit 23-6
LOS, S, FFS, vp
- Exhibits 23-2, 23-3 fID - Exhibit 23-7
Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 7/17/2010 10:24 PM BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET Page 1 of 1
file://C:\Documents and Settings\sshark\Local Settings\Temp\f2k4AE.tmp 7/17/2010

BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information
Analyst KC Highway/Direction of Travel US 101 NB
Agency or Company Fehr & Peers From/To Laurel to Boronda Date Performed July 2010 Jurisdiction Salinas
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Cumulative Scenario Project Description Cumulative With Project Conditions
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data
Flow Inputs
Volume, V 5232 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91
AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT5
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR0
Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level
DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Driver type adjustment 1.00 Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustments
fp

1.00 ER1.2
ET

4.5 mi/h
FFS 62.4 mi/h
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)
vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x
f
p
)
2947 pc/h/ln
S mi/h
D = vp / S pc/mi/ln
LOS F
Design (N)
Design LOS
vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x
f
p
)
pc/h
S mi/h
D = vp / S pc/mi/ln
Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor Location
N - Number of lanes S - Speed
V - Hourly volume D - Density
vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed
LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed
DDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits23-8, 23-10 fLW - Exhibit 23-4
ET
- Exhibits 23-8, 23-10, 23-11 fLC - Exhibit 23-5
f
p
- Page 23-12 fN
- Exhibit 23-6
LOS, S, FFS, vp
- Exhibits 23-2, 23-3 fID - Exhibit 23-7
Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 7/17/2010 10:24 PM BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET Page 1 of 1
file://C:\Documents and Settings\sshark\Local Settings\Temp\f2k4B4.tmp 7/17/2010

BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information
Analyst KC Highway/Direction of Travel US 101 SB
Agency or Company Fehr & Peers From/To Boronda to Laurel Date Performed July 2010 Jurisdiction Salinas
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Cumulative Scenario Project Description Cumulative With Project Conditions
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data
Flow Inputs
Volume, V 5010 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96
AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT7
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR0
Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level
DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Driver type adjustment 1.00 Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustments
fp

1.00 ER1.2
ET

1.5 fHV = 1/[1+PT
(ET - 1) + PR(ER - 1)] 0.966
Speed Inputs Calc Speed Adj and FFS
Lane Width 12.0 ft
Rt-Shoulder Lat. Clearance 6.0 ft
Interchange Density 1.12 I/mi
Number of Lanes, N 2
FFS (measured) mi/h
Base free-flow Speed, BFFS 70.0 mi/h
fLW 0.0 mi/h
fLC 0.0 mi/h
fID 3.1 mi/h
fN

4.5 mi/h
FFS 62.4 mi/h
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)
vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x
f
p
)
2701 pc/h/ln
S mi/h
D = vp / S pc/mi/ln
LOS F
Design (N)
Design LOS
vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x
f
p
)
pc/h
S mi/h
D = vp / S pc/mi/ln
Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor Location
N - Number of lanes S - Speed
V - Hourly volume D - Density
vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed
LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed
DDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits23-8, 23-10 fLW - Exhibit 23-4
ET
- Exhibits 23-8, 23-10, 23-11 fLC - Exhibit 23-5
f
p
- Page 23-12 fN
- Exhibit 23-6
LOS, S, FFS, vp
- Exhibits 23-2, 23-3 fID - Exhibit 23-7
Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 7/17/2010 10:25 PM BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET Page 1 of 1
file://C:\Documents and Settings\sshark\Local Settings\Temp\f2k4BA.tmp 7/17/2010

BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS WORKSHEET
General Information Site Information
Analyst KC Highway/Direction of Travel US 101 SB
Agency or Company Fehr & Peers From/To Russell to Boronda Date Performed July 2010 Jurisdiction Salinas
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year Cumulative Scenario Project Description
Oper.(LOS) Des.(N) Planning Data
Flow Inputs
Volume, V 5149 veh/h Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96
AADT veh/day %Trucks and Buses, PT7
Peak-Hr Prop. of AADT, K %RVs, PR0
Peak-Hr Direction Prop, D General Terrain: Level
DDHV = AADT x K x D veh/h Grade % Length mi
Driver type adjustment 1.00 Up/Down %
Calculate Flow Adjustments
fp

1.00 ER1.2
ET

4.5 mi/h
FFS 62.4 mi/h
LOS and Performance Measures Design (N)
Operational (LOS)
vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x
f
p
)
2776 pc/h/ln
S mi/h
D = vp / S pc/mi/ln
LOS F
Design (N)
Design LOS
vp = (V or DDHV) / (PHF x N x fHV x
f
p
)
pc/h
S mi/h
D = vp / S pc/mi/ln
Required Number of Lanes, N
Glossary Factor Location
N - Number of lanes S - Speed
V - Hourly volume D - Density
vp - Flow rate FFS - Free-flow speed
LOS - Level of service BFFS - Base free-flow speed
DDHV - Directional design hour volume
ER - Exhibits23-8, 23-10 fLW - Exhibit 23-4
ET
- Exhibits 23-8, 23-10, 23-11 fLC - Exhibit 23-5
f
p
- Page 23-12 fN
- Exhibit 23-6
LOS, S, FFS, vp
- Exhibits 23-2, 23-3 fID - Exhibit 23-7
Copyright © 2007 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.3 Generated: 7/17/2010 10:25 PM BASIC FREEWAY WORKSHEET Page 1 of 1
file://C:\Documents and Settings\sshark\Local Settings\Temp\f2k4C0.tmp 7/17/2010

APPENDIX D:

PEAK-HOUR SIGNAL WARRANTS
Project - Int 4. San Juan Grade_Northridge_PM

No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Major Street
(Sum of both
approaches)
Minor street
(High volume
approach)
5:00 PM 1,169 226

Time
Vehicles Per Hour
Peak Hour
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MINOR STREET - HIGHER VOLUME APPROACH
(VPH)

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
FIGURE 4C-4. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Community less than 10,000 or above 40 mph on major street) Peak Hour
The peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour of the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the curve in Figure 4-5 for the existing combination of approach lanes.

When the 85-percentile speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mile per hour or when the intersection lies within a built-up area of an isolated community having a population less than 10,000, the peak hour volume requirement is satisfied when the plotted point referred to above falls above the curve in Figure 4-6 for the existing combination of approach lanes. 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1 LANE
*100
*75
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one or lane.

WARRANT 3B (RURAL)
Project - Int 4. San Juan Grade_Northridge_SAT

No of lanes
Major Street 2
Minor Street 1
Major Street
(Sum of both
approaches)
Minor street
(High volume
approach)
12:00 PM 1,022 286

Time
Vehicles Per Hour
Peak Hour
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MINOR STREET - HIGHER VOLUME APPROACH
(VPH)

WARRANT 3B (RURAL)

APPENDIX E:

INTERSECTION QUEUE REPORTS
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Cum With Prj Conditions

Intersection: 1: Russell Road & Van Buren Ave.

!"#""$
% &' ' (' & &' )
*

#""$
% ' + )& + () (
+&,#""$
% )( ( ') &) & &&
-

$
% .. )& .( ((
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
% & & &

0- $1%
#""
02$,%
Intersection: 2: Russell Road & San Juan Grade Rd.

/

!"#""$
% & ) & )( )& )+ '
*

#""$
% )& ' . ( & ( .&
+&,#""$
% +& .) ) + . '
-

$
% )& & (.)
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
% & ( & &&

0- $1% &
#""
02$,% ( +
Intersection: 3: Van Buren Ave. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% ' )( &
*

#""$
% .' +(
+&,#""$
% +& & .
-

$
% )(( '') &
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
%

0- $1%
#""
02$,%
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Cum With Prj Conditions

Intersection: 4: Northridge Wy. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% & + )' . +& ) . ( .+
*

#""$
% . ) ) (( .
+&,#""$
% . (+ ) ) &' ' +. '
-

$
% .)) )(' )(' ( ( ( (
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,% & '

2

$
%

0- $1% ) )
#""
02$,% &
Intersection: 5: Mobile Home Drwy. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% )( . ) )' .' '+
*

#""$
% ) + .
+&,#""$
% ' )) ' + & '
-

$
% )) )) ( (
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
% (

0- $1%
#""
02$,%
Intersection: 6: Boronda Rd. & SB 101 Off-Ramp

!"#""$
% .& )&& .'( ++ ' & )+. &) )
*

#""$
% &+ & .& . & & + ) &)
+&,#""$
% . && )' ' + ) () )& . (
-

$
% '& '& '&& '&& '&& (&
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
% )& & && .

0- $1%
#""
02$,% +
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Cum With Prj Conditions

)
Intersection: 7: Boronda Rd. & NB 101 On-Ramp

!"#""$
% )) ' ''& & (. & )' & ++ '' +'
*

#""$
% ) )+) &( ( ) ( ' + ( )
+&,#""$
% &+ + +). + ' ( ' (& & '
-

$
% '&& '&& '&& + + + &'
/

0- $1% &
#""
02$,% )

2

$
% & & )& )&

0- $1% )&
#""
02$,% + (
Intersection: 8: Boronda Rd. & N. Main Street
).

!"#""$
% )) ' & .. ). ' ).+ (& ( (( & ('
*

#""$
% () ' & +( ' ( & &&& &(' ++ &
+&,#""$
% . .( (' . &( ( ' ). .( (& ( )
-

$
% &' &' &' &' &' &' &'' &'' &'' +
/

0- $1% + ( . +
#""
02$,% ( + (+ (+ ) & ' +

2

$
% )& &

0- $1% . (.
#""
02$,% +
Intersection: 8: Boronda Rd. & N. Main Street
). ).

!"#""$
% +' )&) &+( (+ ((. .( . & .. & &
*

#""$
% (' ' .(. .(. () ' & & + .(
+&,#""$
% .( ' ( (+ (+) ). ) ' .) .+ ()
-

$
% + + ) ) . .
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
% (& (& & & &

0- $1% . ) )(
#""
02$,% ) ( & ). & &)
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Cum With Prj Conditions

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.
). ). ).

!"#""$
% ). ). ' '(. )(& )(& ))+ )& .+ .. &( +.
*

#""$
% ) ( &.. & & . ' () ' + .+
+&,#""$
% )+ +&+ +(& )&) )+ ) ( ' ' ' &&
-

$
% + + &'' &'' &'' )) )) ))
/

0- $1% +
#""
02$,% (.

2

$
% + + ) )

0- $1% )
#""
02$,% +(
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% & .) (' ) & ( '( )) .. &
*

#""$
% +' ) +' . )( . &+ ' '
+&,#""$
% & ' & . ' . .&
-

$
% ))( ))( )) ))
/

0- $1% .
#""
02$,% ' )

2

$
% & )& )& & & &

0- $1% . ' &
#""
02$,% & . (
Intersection: 10: Boronda Rd. & Shopping Center Drwy.

!"#""$
% ' . ) ) ') )+ )' (.
*

#""$
% + .. & ( ) (&
+&,#""$
% & + ) .. + )&
-

$
% &) &) &) )( )( )( )''
/

0- $1% )
#""
02$,% ( . &+

2

$
%

0- $1% &
#""
02$,% +
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Cum With Prj Conditions

&
Intersection: 11: Boronda Rd. & Project Drwy

!"#""$
% && )( .) . &( (. . . )
*

#""$
% ( ' ( )' ' )& . &
+&,#""$
% ) .) .&& + & &+. ) ) ' &&
-

$
% )( )( ..) ..) )& (&
/

0- $1% '
#""
02$,% ) &

2

$
% . & &

0- $1% & & .
#""
02$,% . ( + '
Intersection: 12: Boronda Rd. & McKinnon St.

!"#""$
% .' .&' &. )& & )( ( & ).+ ) &.
*

#""$
% + '( +. (+ ) )& )&
+&,#""$
% )& ) )++ . + & )' + .( ( )
-

$
% ..) ..) +. +. ()+ (.
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
% . ) )& & & )&

0- $1%
#""
02$,% + (
Intersection: 16: Boronda Rd. &

!"#""$
% &. (. '( ( &. & . ) '
*

#""$
% ( . ' ) & + &
+&,#""$
% )& ' . ( & ) ) + (&
-

$
% + + + + &' &' &' .
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,% . . ) ' &

2

$
% & &

0- $1%
#""
02$,% & ) )
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Cum With Prj Conditions

(
Intersection: 17: Boronda Rd. & Project Drwy

!"#""$
% & '( +& ' . . +&
*

#""$
% .)
+&,#""$
% . .. & & ' '
-

$
% )) )) )) &) &) &) '(
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
%

0- $1%
#""
02$,%
Intersection: 32: Project Drwy & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% ) ' .. .&
*

#""$
% )& ) )
+&,#""$
% + .
-

$
% ( ( '')
/

0- $1%
#""
02$,%

2

$
%

0- $1%
#""
02$,%
Network Summary

3
-3#""
024'.

Queuing and Blocking Report
SAT Cumulative With Project Conditions

Intersection: 1: Russell Road & Van Buren Ave.

!"#""$
% & ' ' ' ( ' (
)

#""$
% ( *+ ,( * +'
&,-#""$
% '* & ,+ , * ,* ',
.

$
% ** +, *' ''
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
% , , ,

0. $1%
#""
02$-%
Intersection: 2: Russell Road & San Juan Grade Rd.

/

!"#""$
% +' * + ' (
)

#""$
% '' + ,, ' , ++
&,-#""$
% '' &( , , + ',
.

$
% +, , '*+
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
% , ' , ,,

0. $1%
#""
02$-% +
Intersection: 3: Van Buren Ave. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% +&
)

#""$
% ,' '(
&,-#""$
% &
.

$
% +'' ((+
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
%

0. $1%
#""
02$-%
Queuing and Blocking Report
SAT Cumulative With Project Conditions

Intersection: 4: Northridge Wy. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% & ( * * &+ + * '+ '
)

#""$
% ** ' + , + ' , &
&,-#""$
% * +& & , & ' &
.

$
% *++ +'( +'( ' ' ' '
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-% ,

2

$
%

0. $1% * +
#""
02$-% & , (
Intersection: 5: Mobile Home Drwy. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% +( , ( *
)

#""$
% * + &
&,-#""$
% * ( & '
.

$
% + + ' '
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
% '

0. $1%
#""
02$-%
Intersection: 6: Boronda Rd. & SB 101 Off-Ramp

!"#""$
% ,& ,( +* &( +' +* ++ (, +, '
)

#""$
% & , ** ' ( '+ ( ',
&,-#""$
% *, *( '( + * '' ( &
.

$
% (, (, (,, (,, (,, ',
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
% +, , ,, *

0. $1% +
#""
02$-% + ' *
Queuing and Blocking Report
SAT Cumulative With Project Conditions

+
Intersection: 7: Boronda Rd. & NB 101 On-Ramp

!"#""$
% ',' + ( , * +** +' , ,& + &
)

#""$
% * +,( *+ ,& ( ' +( ' * ,
&,-#""$
% ,++ ''* ( &, (& '+ ' ,, + &( *
.

$
% (,, (,, (,, & & & ,(
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-% * +

2

$
% , , +, +,

0. $1% +&
#""
02$-% ,, *
Intersection: 8: Boronda Rd. & N. Main Street
+*

!"#""$
% + ** +& + + +*& ', ',, '' , *
)

#""$
% *' '' , * '* *( *(( , ,+* (* +&
&,-#""$
% ** , ,& * '+ &( ' * &( '
.

$
% ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( ,( &
/

0. $1% * ++ ' & ,
#""
02$-% *, ' ' (* (' *+ ,& '&

2

$
% +, ,

0. $1% ++ ,*
#""
02$-% +( ( '
Intersection: 8: Boronda Rd. & N. Main Street
+* +*

!"#""$
% *( ,, *, *+( &( +* , , '+ '(& ,
)

#""$
% , ' +, +, ' , +& ' + +(' *'
&,-#""$
% ,* ** *+ , , & ,'* ',+ ',
.

$
% & & + + * *
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
% ', ', , , ,

0. $1% + +' & *+
#""
02$-% *& (& '
Queuing and Blocking Report
SAT Cumulative With Project Conditions

*
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.
+* +* +*

!"#""$
% + +* (+* (+( * * + & & ,* (* +(
)

#""$
% (* ,+' ,,, +' ' & (, *' ,& &
&,-#""$
% &' +** (& ((' +& *++ + ,, * ,' &
.

$
% & & ,( ,( ,( ++ ++ ++
/

0. $1% + *
#""
02$-% + ( *

2

$
% & & + +

0. $1% , *
#""
02$-% ' * (, *
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% ,, & +' & ( & (' + +' ,
)

#""$
% (* & + + *' '+ ', *& &'
&,-#""$
% * && & ( ++ ,*
.

$
% ++' ++' + +
/

0. $1% +
#""
02$-% +* *

2

$
% , +, +, , , ,

0. $1% ' * '
#""
02$-% & *
Intersection: 10: Boronda Rd. & Shopping Center Drwy.

!"#""$
% , & * +' &, ' *'
)

#""$
% ' , +& ( +, * * (+
&,-#""$
% * ( , + (, , , (
.

$
% ,+ ,+ ,+ +' +' +' +((
/

0. $1% * (
#""
02$-% ' ++

2

$
%

0. $1%
#""
02$-% *+
Queuing and Blocking Report
SAT Cumulative With Project Conditions

,
Intersection: 11: Boronda Rd. & Project Drwy

!"#""$
% '* +(* +&* &* ( &** + * * '&
)

#""$
% ,* + *'* , ,(
&,-#""$
% * *' *, ,* (+ &** , + & (
.

$
% +' +' **+ **+ +, ',
/

0. $1% *
#""
02$-% ' '

2

$
% * , ,

0. $1% + + '
#""
02$-% + * *
Intersection: 12: Boronda Rd. & McKinnon St.

!"#""$
% + ,* ,, +, + & ++ , ++ +
)

#""$
% * * '+ &+ *& ,( ,+ &' +
&,-#""$
% *' *&& (+ '* '+ ( ( * &' ,
.

$
% **+ **+ &* &* '+& '*
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
% * + +, , ,

0. $1% ' ,
#""
02$-% * +
Intersection: 16: Boronda Rd. &

!"#""$
% ( * ( +,( +'* , (* &
)

#""$
% ' ( *& ' &* (& (
&,-#""$
% , + *, ' + & (( ' ((
.

$
% & & & & ,( ,( ,( *
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-% ' +

2

$
% , ,

0. $1%
#""
02$-% & '
Queuing and Blocking Report
SAT Cumulative With Project Conditions

'
Intersection: 17: Boronda Rd. & Project Drwy

!"#""$
% + , &+ ,( *'
)

#""$
% + ( ,
&,-#""$
% , *( +
.

$
% ++ ++ ++ ,+ ('
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
%

0. $1%
#""
02$-%
Intersection: 32: Project Drwy & San Juan Grade Rd.

!"#""$
% &&
)

#""$
% ,
&,-#""$
% ' * ' (
.

$
% ' ' ((+
/

0. $1%
#""
02$-%

2

$
%

0. $1%
#""
02$-%
Network Summary

3
.3#""
024',+

APPENDIX F:

MITIGATED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Project_PM Mitigation 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!
"#$ "#% "#
&#$ &#% &#
'#$ '#% '#
#$ #% #

$( )
*+)
,!

- ./ 0
/ 0
/
/ . . 0 0
0 /
1+2+3,!

+- . . . . . . . . . . . . %+$
,-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
$5+42 4. 4. 4 4. 4 4 4. 4 4 4. 4 2
67
68 4 4 4 4 4. 4 4 4. 4 4 4. 2+
67
68 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4.. 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40 2+
4. 4 4. 4 4 4. 4 4 4. 4 4 42+3,
- / /./ 0 . . . 2+

4. 4 4. 4 4 4. 4 4 4. 4 4 42+3,

- / /./ 0 . . .

)(7
92 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ 4./ :42+3,!

- 0/
0 ..
0 0 / .

%;

),!

- / . .
$<)
2+3,!

- .0 ..
0 0 / / .

(+4
4,=
-
(+4#8,=
-
%)%

/ 0

:)<7<,- 4 4
4 4 4 4
4 4 04 /40 /40
"((!<7 ,- 4 4
4 4 4 4
4 4 04 /40 /40
:)
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4
40 4/ 4/
+%
,-
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
+">,- 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 $<

,!

- /0 . /
0 0 0/
/
!

4. 4 4 4/ 4
4. 4 4

!

4 4 4/
!
4 40 4 4/ 4 4
4/ 4
4.0 4 4
5(
?+7 /4
4 /
4 .4
4 //4
.4.
4 /4 4 4

2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1
+?+7 /4
4/ 04 4 4 4/ 4 4 //4 4 4
?+,- /04 04 /40 .4

4. /4 /4.
40 04 4 4
$!+(! ? ? 2 ? ? ? 2
:

?+,- /4
/4 /4/ /4
:

$; ? ? ? ?
1)

9:! +?+ /4 9$!+(! ?
9*+)

4
:)+$
,- /4 )
(+
,- 04
1
5+@ 04.A 15$!+(! "
:+
,
-
+$<)

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Project_SAT Mitigation 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

!
"#
$%& $% $% '%& '% '% (%& (% (%
%&
%
%
& )!*
+,*
-#
.

/ 0

/ 1
0
/1
2 ,3,4-#
,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,&
-.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
& 6,53 50 50
5 50 5 5 50
5 5 50
5
3 78 79 5 5 5 5 50 5 5 50 5 5 50 3, 78 79 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 500 5 5 51
5 5 51
5 5 51

3, 50
5 50
5 5 50
5 5 50
5 5

53,4- . / /
1

0
0
0

3,
50
5 50
5 5 50
5 5 50
5 5

53,4-
. / /
1

0
0
0

9

*) 8:3 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 50/ 53,4-#
.
0
// 1/ 0 1 0 0 1
/
;*-#
.
1

& <* 3,4-#
.

// 1/ / 0 1 / 0 1
0 ),55-=
.
),5%9-=
.
*

/ 1

* <8<-. /5
51 5 51 51 51 /51 /51 15/ 5/ 5/
$))#<8!-. /5
51 5 51 51 51 /51 /51 15/ 5/ 5/
* ! 5
51 5 5
5
5 5
5
50 5 5
,
-.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
+
,$>-. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 & < -#
.

01 1/ 0

/ 0
//
# 5 5 5/ 5
5 5 5 5

#
5 5 5/
# 5 51 5
5
5 5
0 5/ 5
50 5 5
6)
?,
8 15
5
/5 50 5
05

5/ /5 5
5
051
!3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2
,?,
8 /5 /5 5
5 5 5
5
5
5 5 5
?,
-. /51
5
/5
50 5 /5 5 /5/
5 5 5
&#,)
# ? ? 3 ? ? $

?,
-. 15

5 50 /5

&;
? $ ? ?
2
*

:"# !,?,
/
5/ :"&#,)
# ?
:"+,*

51
*
,&!
-. 0
5
*
),
-. /5
2
6,@ 150A 26&#,)
# $
,
-
.

,& <*
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cum With Prj_PM Mitiigation 8: Boronda Rd. & N. Main Street

"
#$% #$& #$
$% $& $
'$% '$& '$
$% $& $

% (!
)*
+" , - . - . - -. .. - -/ 00 .-/
1 *2*3+" *, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & *%
+, -4 -4- -4- -4 40 40 -4
-4- -4- -4 -4- .4
% 5*42
40 40 4 4 40 4 40 40 4 4 40 4 2 67 68 4 4 40
4 4 40
4 4 40
4 4 400
2* 67 68 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4/ 4 4 4/ 4 4 4/ 4 4 4/ 2*

40 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 42*3+ , .-.. /
/
.-.. ..0 ..0
.
2*

40 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 42*3+
, .-.. /
/
.-.. ..0 ..0
.

8 (
7
92 40- 40- 40- 40- 40- 40- 40- 40- 40- 40- 40- 40- :42*3+" , -- .- -/-

. .. ./ .

&;

+" , 0 -.

% < 2*3+" , -- .- 0
0.
. .. ./ .
-
(*4
4+=,
(*4$8+=,
&&

- . /

- /

:
<7<+, /4
4
4
40 ./4 ./4 .4/ 4 4 .4 04. -4/
#((
"<7!+, 04
4

4
40 ./4 ./4 .
4/ 4 4 .
4 4/ 4/
:
!
4 4-. 4-. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4- 4. *
&
+, 4 40 40 4 40 40 4
40 40 4 40 4
)
*#?+, 4/ -4/ -4/ 4/ 4. 4. 4/ 4. 4. 4/ 4. 4/ % < +" ,

0 .. -
/.
--
0 -0
"

4. 4
4.
4
4 4 40 40
4-
"

4 4
4 4
"

4
. 4
4- 4/ 4/ 4. 4/ 4
4. 4. 4
4

5(
@* 7 4
.4 /4

4/ -04/ -4 4 /4. 4 --4- /4. .04

!2
4 4 400 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1

*@* 7 4- 4 4/ 4 .4/ 4 04- 40 4 4 40 4. @* +, -4 .40 04. 40 .4
-4
4
4 4 --4

4 -4
%"*("
@ # @ @ # # @ @ # @
:
@* +, .

4. .4
4/ -04-
:
%; @ @ # @
1

9
:" !*@* -4- 9
%"*("
@
9
)*

4
:

*%!+, --4
(*
+, 40
1

5*A /4B 15%"*("
#
: *
+
,

*% <
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cum With Prj_SAT Mitigation 8: Boronda Rd. & N. Main Street

"#
$
%
&'( &' &'# '( ' '# )'( )' )'#
'(
'
'#
(

*$

+ ,- . . / 0

01 ./
/ .
.
/ .

234,- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( , - /5 /5/ /5/ /5
51 51 /5
/5/ /5/ /5 /5/ .5
(
653
51 51 5 5 51 5 51 51
5 5 51
5
37879 5 5 51
5 5 51
5 5 51
5 5 510
37879 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 50
5 5 50
5 5 50
5 5 50

3
51
5 5 51
5 5 51
5 5 51
5 5

534,- ./..
0

0

/ ./.. .
.1

.
.1

0 3 51
5 5 51
5 5 51
5 5 51
5 5

534, - ./..
0

0

/ ./.. .
.1

.
.1

0 9"*
8:3 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/ 51/

534,- .. 0 //0
.
0
.
/
// . .

#;##

,- .
/ /1

(
<34,- .. 0 .

.
0 .
/ 0 // . .

*5 5,=-

*5'9 ,=-

! >

/ . 0

/ 0

<
8<, - /5/
/51
/51 /5 //5
//5
/5. 5 5 /.5
5 /
5 &**
<
8$, -
5/

5/
5 //5
//5
/.5. 5 5 //5
.5
/15

$# 5
5.
5.
5 51 51 50 5
5
51 5
5.

, -
5
51 51
5
51 51
5 51
51 5
51 5
+
&?

, - 50 /50 /50 50 5. 5. 50 5. 5. 50 5. 50
(
<,-

1 0/

/
/.
1 .

.
/1

# 5
5
5
5/
5
5 50
5
5
# 5
5 5 5

# 5
1 5 5/. 5/ 50
5/ 51 5 5/ 50 5 5

6 * @!8
5
/5/ .5

05 5
/50
/5.
.5/
5 /.5.
50 /
5
$
3
5 5 511 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2
@!8 5 5/ 5 /5 /5 5 5
.51 5 5 .5 5
@!, -
5
/.51 .05/ 05

5 /.5

50 5.
5. /.5/

5 /51
(*

& @ @ 3 & @ & & & @ & @

@!, - /
5 50

50 5/

(;
@ & & &
2

!
:%
$
@!
/50 :%(*

@
:%+
! 51

!
(
$, -

51 * , - /51
2

!6A
0/5/B 26(*

&

! ,
-

(
<
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cum With Prj_PM Mitiigation 8: Boronda Rd. & N. Main Street

!

"#!
$!
! %&' %&( %& &' &( & )&' )&( )&
&'
&(
&
'"!*#"
+,
!-$
. / 0 / 0 / /0

00 /
/ 0/
1!",2,3-$

,. (",'
!-. /4 /4/ /4/ /4 4 /4
/4/ /4/ /4 /4/ 04

'"!5,42"
4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
2
67
!68! 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4
2,
67
!68! 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2,!
! 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

"42,3-
. 0/00

/
0/00 00

00

2,!
! 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

"42,3-
!
. 0/00

/
0/00 00

00

!"8*"
792 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ :42,3-$
. // 0/ //

0 00
0 0

(; !
-$
. 0 /0

'"!<
2,3-$
. // 0/

/

0 00

0 0
/
*,4!4-=.
*,4&8!-=.
((

! !
!

>$
!
!"!
/ 0

!
!"! /

:
"!<!!7<-.
4
4
4
4 /4 0
4 4 4 04
40 /4/
%**!
$!<!!7#-.
4
4

4
4 /4 0
4 4 4 0
4 4 /4/
:
"!# " 4 4/0 4/0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4/ 400 ,!""
!(
!-. 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
+!
,!%?!-. 4 /4 /4 4 40 4 40 40 4 40 4 '"!<
"
-$
.
0
/
/0
0 // /

$ " 40 4
40
4
4 4 4 4
40
$ "!
4
4 4
$
" 4
4
4/ 4 4
4 4
40 40 4
0 4

5*
@!,"
7 4
04 4

4/ /4/ 4/ 4 04/ //4 4 /4

#!2"
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1
!
!",@!,"
7 4
4
4 4
4 4
04 4 4 4 04
@!,"
-. 4 04 40
4 4
4
4 04/ /4
4 /
4
'!$!,*
!$
! % % % % % @ @ % @
:

"
@!,"
-. 0
4
4
4
4

"
';
@ % % @
1!!

9:$!"#!,@!,"
/4 9'!$!,*
!$
! @
9+,
!"
"

" 4
:
"!

,!'!#-. /
4

*,
!-.
4
1!!
"
"

5,A" /4B 15'!$!,*
!$
! %
:",
!-
.

",'"!<

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cum With Prj_SAT Mitigation 8: Boronda Rd. & N. Main Street

!
" #

&
'

()* () ()% )* ) )% +)* +) +)% )* ) )%
*
,&

"
-

. / 0 0 1

01
1 0
0 1 0

2!3
4. /
*
"
."/ 15 151 151 15
5 15
151 151 15 151 05

* 653

5
5 5 5 5 5
5
5 5 5
5
3 78 !79" 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5
3 78 !79" 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5

! 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
!53
4.

/ 0100

0100 0
0

0
0

! 5
5 5 5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
!53
4.

/ 0100

0100 0
0

0
0

9$

,

8:3 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 !
53
4. / 00 11
0

0
1 11 0

%;%%!
. / 0 1

* <

3
4. / 00 0

0
0
1 11 0

0

,5!"5.=
/

,5)9".=
/

#

!""
1 0

!"" 1

!<
8<."/ 51
15
15 15 15
150 5 5 105
5 15

(,,<
8&."/ 51

51 51
5 15
1050 5
5
115
05
1 5

!&%
51 50
50
5 50 5 5
5
5 5
5

."/
5
5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5
-(? "
."/ 5 15 15 5 50 5 50 50 5 50 5
* <
. / 1
1

1
0

0 1
1 "%

5 5
5
5 5
5 5 5 5
"%

5
5 5
%
5
5
510 5
1 5 5 5
51 5 5
5

6 ,

@#8!
15 151 0
5 5

5
150
051

5 1050
5 15

&
""
3

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2
@#8! 05 51 5 15
5 5
05 5 5 05
15
@#."/
5 105 051 5

50 50 1051

5 05
*
,
( @ @ 3 ( ( ( ( @ ( @

@#."/ 1
5 5

*; @ ( ( (
2
"

#
:'
&

5 :'*
,
(
:'-

#

5
!#* &."/

5

,
"
."/ 15
2
"
#6A

5B 26*
,
(
#""

!.
/

* <

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cum With Prj_PM Mitiigation 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

"
#$% #$& #$
$% $& $
'$% '$& '$
$% $& $

% (!
)*
+" , -- -
. / / /
.- 0. -.0
- -
1 *2*3+" *, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & *%
+,
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
% 5*42
40 40 40 40 4 40 40 4 40 40 4 2 67 68 4 4 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40 2* 67 68 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 400 4 4 4/ 4 4 4/ 4 4 4/ 2*

40 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 42*3+ , -.-- -- -.-- / - -.-- --0 - -.-- --0 / 2*

40 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 4 42*3+
, -.-- -- -.-- / - -.-- --0 - -.-- --0 /

8 (
7
92 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. :42*3+" , ---
/ 00 . - .0 - /
0 &;

+" , - / -
% < 2*3+" , --- / 00 . .0 0 - /

(*4
4+=,
(*4$8+=,
&&

. - /

:
<7<+, -4 .4- 4 -
4 -
4 -4- 4 4 4 -4 -4
#((
"<7!+, -4 .4- 4 -
4 -
4 -4- 4 4 4 -4 -4
:
!
4 4-
40 4-- 4-- 4 40 40 4. 4 4
*
&
+,
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
)
*#>+, 4 -4 4 -4 -4 4 -4 -4 4 -4 -4 % < +" , .- -0

.
0 ./ .0 --
"

4
4-. 4
4 4/
4-
4 4/
"

4 4 4.
"

40 40- 4
. 4.
4 4

4
/ 4 4
4- 4
5(
?* 7 .4- -.4 ./4/ 04
4 .
4 .40 -
40 .40 -4 -
4

!2
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1

*?* 7 /4 4- -4. 4 4 -4 40 4

4. 4- 4-
?* +, 40 .

4. 4- 04
40 .04/ ..4/ -4 4- -4/ -

4. %"*("
# ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
:
?* +, ./4 -4 .4 .-4
:
%; ? ? ?
1

9
:" !*?* .4. 9
%"*("
?
9
)*

4/

:

*%!+, 4
(*
+, .4
1

5*@ /-4A 15%"*("
#
: *
+
,

*% <
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cum With Prj_SAT Mitigation 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

"#
$
%
&'( &' &'# '( ' '# )'( )' )'#
'(
'
'#
(

*$

+ ,- .
. /
0 / 0.
.. .
1 // .. /0
/
234,- / / / / / / / / / / / / ( , -
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
(
653
5/ 5/
5/ 5/ 5 5/ 5/
5 5/ 5/
5
37879 5 5 5 5 5/ 5 5 5/ 5 5 5/

37879 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5// 5 5 50
5 5 50
5 5 50

3
5/
5 5/
5 5 5/
5 5 5/
5 5

534,- .1.. .1/
.1..
0

. .1.. .
./
/ .1.. .
./

3 5/
5 5/
5 5 5/
5 5 5/
5 5

534, - .1.. .1/
.1..
0

. .1.. .
./
/ .1.. .
./

9"*
8:3 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1

534,- .0
/
11 000 .
.0
./ .

#;##

,- 1 1 0 0.
(
<34,- .0
/ 11 000 . .
.0 0 ./ . /.

*5 5,=-

*5'9 ,=-

!

1 . 0

<
8<, - 15 15. 5 .
5/ .
5/
5 /5 /5
51 /5/ /5/
&**
<
8$, - 15 15. 5 .
5/ .
5/
5 /5 /5
51 /5/ /5/

$# 5. 5.
5 5.. 5.. 51 5 5 5
50 50

, -
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
+
&>

, - 5 .5 5 .5 .5 5 .5 .5 5 .5 .5
(
<,- 1.0 1 ..
/
. 10
1

/
. 1
#
5
5. 5 5 5
5
5 5/
# 5
5 5

# 500 50
5. 5
51 5 5
. 5 50 5
5.1
6 * ?!8 151 .5
105
/5
50 1
51 151 .05 1
51 150 ./5

$
3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2
?!8 5/
5/ 5 5. 5 151 5 5
50 5
5
?!, -

5. .051

5 .5
5/ 1/50 115
.05.
5 15
151
(*

& ? & ? ? ? ? ? ?

?!, - 1
51 .15 1
5/ 1
51
(;
? ? ?
2

!
:%
$
?! 15 :%(*

?
:%+
! 50.

!
(
$, - 5

* , - 15
2

!6@
05A 26(*

?

! ,
-

(
<
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cum With Prj_PM Mitiigation 12: Boronda Rd. & McKinnon St.

"
#$% #$& #$
$% $& $
'$% '$& '$
$% $& $

% (!
)*
+" , - .
/ 0 0 .
/ /0 - /
1 *2*3+" *, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & *%
+,
4
4
4
4
4
4 4 4 4 4
% 5*42
4 40 4 4 40 4 4 4 4 4
2 67 68 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 40 4 40- 2* 67 68 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 400 4 2 4 4 4- 4 4 4- 4 4-
4 4-0
2*

40 4 4 40 4 4 40 4 40 4
42*3+ , ..0 ..0 . - .
2*

40 4 4 40 4 4 4/ 4 4 4 42*3+
, ..0 ..0 . .-
- ..

8 (
7
92 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ 40/ :42*3+" , .- 0-/ . 0 / 0

&;

+" , 0 .0
% < 2*3+" , 0 0-/ 0 0 0 (*4
4+=,
(*4$8+=,
&&

- /

- /
:
<7<+, 4 /04 /04 -4.
4
4 /4 /4 /4 /4
#((
"<7!+, 4 /04 /04 -4.
4
4 /4 /4 /4 /4
:
!
4 4/0 4/0 4- 4
4
4 4 4 4
*
&
+,
4
4
4
4
4
4 4 4 4 4
)
*#>+, .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 % < +" , .0 .- / 00 -/
./ .- .
.0
"

4
4.
4

4- 4 4
"

4. 4
4 4
"

4.. 4
4
4
0 4/0 4 4- 4/ 4. 4
5(
?* 7 /04 -4 /4- //4 .4 04
.4
-4- -4
-4

!2
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1

*?* 7 04 4
4- 4 40 4 /4
4 4 4
?* +, -4 4 4
4 /4 04
4 -4- -4 -4

%"*("
# $ # $ : ?
:
?* +, 04 -4 /
4 -4

:
%; $ $ ?
1

9
:" !*?* 4 9
%"*("

9
)*

4
:

*%!+, 0040
(*
+, /4
1

5*@ 4/A 15%"*("

: *
+
,

*% <
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cum With Prj_SAT Mitigation 12: Boronda Rd. & McKinnon St.

"#
$
%
&'( &' &'# '( ' '# )'( )' )'#
'(
'
'#
(

*$

+ ,- . . / / / 0. /
123,- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( , -
4 4

4 4

4
4
4
(
542
4 40
4 4 40
4 4 4 4
26768 4 4 40
4 4 40
4 40 409
26768 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 49
4 4 49
4 49
40
2
40
4 4 40
4 4 40
4 4

423,- /
/0 .09 /
/0

/.

/
2 40
4 4 40
4 4 4
4 4

423, - /
/0 .09 /
/0
.

/.

/
8"*
7:2 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40.

423,- . 0 .
0 / / // 9 /
#;##

,- / /
(
<23,- . 0
0 / //
/

*4 4,=-

*4'8 ,=-

!

9 .

9 .

<
7<, - 4 .049 .049 4
04 04
4. 4. 4.
&**
<
7$, - 4 .049 .049 4
04 04
4. 4. 4.

$# 4 4. 4. 4 4

4
4
4

, -
4 4

4 4

4
4
4
+
&>

, - /4 /4 /4 /4 /4 /4 /4 /4 /4
(
<,-

9/ 09

9. /
/0
.0
# 4
4/
4 4/ 4 4
# 49 4
4

# 4 4

4
4 4

4 49
4 4
5 * ?!7
4 4

4 .
4 .40 4 /4
04/ 04/
$
2
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1
?!7 .40 4 4
4 4 4 949 4 4
?!, -

40 /4

4
4
4 4

4 04/ 04/
(*

& ' & ' ' &

?!, - 4. 4/

4 04/

(;
?
1

!
:%
$
?!
4 :%(*

:%+
! 4

!
(
$, -
4
* , - 94
1

!5@
/4/A 15(*

?

! ,
-

(
<

APPENDIX G:

APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECTS
Map # Development Description Size Unit
ApprovedRogge Road Residential Development

!
"#$

!
&$$$ '

()
*!
+
##$

,-

.
/ 0 &$$$ 1*2,-

.
/ 0 #&$$$ 1*2,-

.
/ 0 #&$$$ 1*2

2 3

4
*5

#"
6
!

$&$ 1*2
Pending

%

%
'2
4 2
7

822 9$&$$$ 1*2

$$&$$$ 1*2

$$
!
:
&$$$ 1*2
, *
'- ;

<%)822 #&# 1*2
'%* :
:
&#9 1*2
"
'%* :
:
"&==# 1*2

6 &'*'
-<2&
!
5
"&$"= 1*2
!!

:
822 &# 1*2
=&9 1*2

!!

<:
&9 1*2
!!

:
822 &#= 1*2
"&=" 1*2
,(
55 " ,(
555 $# ,(
53 9# ,(
3 #$

APPENDIX H:

FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS AT THE INTERSECTION OF

BORONDA ROAD AND MAIN STREET
Salinas (Cloverfield) Retail Center Fair-Share Contribution at Boronda Road and Main Street Study Int # Intersection Juristiction
Peak
Hour
Total Existing
Intersection
Volume
(VE)
Total
Cumulative
Intersection
Volume
(VT)
Project Trips
(VP)
Percent
Contribution
of Growth

VP/(VT-VE)
Percent
Contribution of
Total Traffic
(VP/VT)
Salinas (Cloverfield) Retail Center TIA
Recommended Mitigation
PM 4103 5233 455 40.27% 8.69%
SAT 3948 5359 603 42.74% 11.25%
Notes:
1 Other impacted intersection mitigated with payment of Traffic Impact Fees.

Cumulative-Level Impact Contributions
1) Add a third eastbound through, 2) Conversion of the
westbound through-right lane into an exclusive through
lane (SAT only), 3) A separate westbound right-turn lane (SAT only), and 4) southbound right-turn overlap phase.

Boronda Road and Main
Street 8 Salinas

APPENDIX I:

EAST BORONDA ROAD AND SAN JUAN GRADE ROAD

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com

MEMORANDUM
Date: April 15, 2010
To: Rob Russell, City of Salinas
Tara Hullinger, City of Salinas
From: Daniel Rubins, P.E. and Kevin Chen
Subject: East Boronda Road and San Juan Grade Road Intersection Analysis SJ10-1154
Fehr & Peers was retained to evaluate the traffic operations at the East Boronda Road / San Juan Grade Road intersection. The analysis considered both the AM and PM peak hour conditions under Year 2030 Current General Plan Conditions. The study was completed to identify the appropriate geometric design for the westbound right turn-lane and to inform the site developer regarding project site driveway placement on East Boronda Road. For this study, Boronda Road is considered east-west, while San Juan Grade Road is considered north-south.

BACKGROUND
The proposed Salinas Retail Center located at the northeast corner of Boronda Road and San Juan Grade Road in Salinas, California is consistent with the current General Plan land use, but conflicts with the planned roadway improvements at San Juan Grade Road and Boronda Road.

Specifically the proposed site plan would only accommodate a westbound shared through-right lane. The City of Salinas Public Works Department has an active project (No. 9510) to construct double lefts on all approaches and maintain the sweeping westbound right-turn lane.

Three City of Traffic Improvement Program (TIP) projects planned at or near the East Boronda Road and San Juan Grade Road intersection include:

TIP Project 13: San Juan Grade Road (north/south roadway) widened to a 4-lane divided arterial with bicycle lanes between East Boronda Road and Rogge Road.

This roadway will serve an estimated 14,900 vehicles per day with construction of the future growth area north of East Boronda Road. The posted speed limit will be 35 to 40 mph.

TIP Project 20: East Boronda Road (east/west roadway) widened to a 6-lane divided arterial between San Juan Grade Road and Williams Road. This roadway will serve an estimated 57,200 daily vehicles with construction of the future growth area north of East Boronda Road. The posted speed limit will be 40 to 45 mph.

TIP Project 50: Turning movements at the East Boronda Road / San Juan Grade Road intersection includes two lefts, two or three through lanes, and separate right-turn lanes for all approaches. Bicycle lanes are planned on all four approaches.

Rob Russell and Tara Hullinger
April 15, 2010

Page 2 of 6 ends

GEOMETRIC ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
This study evaluated five geometric configurations which are shown on Figure 1 and summarized below:
• Intersection Configuration 1: Intersection turning movement configuration and design based on City Public Works Project 9510 with a sweeping westbound right-turn lane, and two eastbound through lanes (i.e., not widening East Boronda Road between Main Street and San Juan Grade Road).
• Intersection Configuration 2: Same as intersection configuration 1 except replaced sweeping westbound right turn lane with a separate westbound right-turn lane without a “pork-chop” pedestrian island (i.e., smaller corner curb-return). • Intersection Configuration 3: Same as intersection configuration 1 except replaced sweeping westbound right turn lane with a westbound shared through-right turn lane. • Intersection Configuration 4: Same as intersection configuration 2, except eastbound approach includes a third eastbound through lane, and the southbound approach includes a shared through-right lane, through lane and two left turn lanes. • Intersection Configuration 5: Same as intersection configuration 3, except eastbound approach includes a third eastbound through lane and the southbound approach includes a shared through right lane, through lane and two left turn lanes.

FORECAST METHOD
The AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement forecasts were developed based on the guidelines published in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 2551
, which were applied to refine the raw model forecasts. This method uses the difference between counts and model volumes and adjusts the existing volume to provide reasonable future forecasts. The Year 2030 Current General Plan Conditions for the five (5) intersection configurations described above are presented in Figure 1.

LEVEL OF SERVICE METHOD
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, with the least congested operating conditions, to LOS F, with the most congested operating conditions. LOS E represents “atcapacity” operations. Operations are designated as LOS F when volumes exceed capacity, resulting in stop-and-go conditions.

1 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Report 255: Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982.

Rob Russell and Tara Hullinger
April 15, 2010

Page 3 of 6 ends

Signalized Intersections
The LOS method for signalized intersections approved by the City of Salinas analyzes intersection operations based on average control vehicular delay, as described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) by the Transportation Research Board. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using Synchro analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1.

The level of service standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for signalized intersections in the City of Salinas is LOS D.

YEAR 2030 CURRENT GENERAL PLAN INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Year 2030 Current General Plan intersection lane configurations, signal timings, and peak-hour turning movement traffic volumes were used to determine the levels of service. The results are presented in Table 2. The corresponding calculation sheets are attached.

The East Boronda Road intersection with San Juan Grade Road will operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour in Year 2030. The intersection LOS can be improved to “D” if East Boranda Road is widened to six (6) lanes through the San Juan Grade intersection.

TABLE 1

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

USING AVERAGE CONTROL VEHICULAR DELAY
Level of
Service Description
Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/ or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/ or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 and ≤ 35.0 D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 and ≤ 55.0
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 and ≤ 80.0
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.

Rob Russell and Tara Hullinger
April 15, 2010

Page 4 of 6 ends

TABLE 2
YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
5-Lane E. Boronda Road2 6-Lane E. Boronda Road3
Intersection Configuration
Description
Peak
Hour1
Delay4
LOS5 Delay4 LOS5
Separate Right-Turn Lane with Large
Pedestrian “Pork Chop” Island
AM
PM

34.4 121.0
C
F

33.9 50.1
C
D
Separate Right-Turn Lane AM
PM

34.4 121.0
C
F

33.9 50.1
C
D
Shared Through-Right Turn Lane AM
PM

45.3 122.4
D
F

45.1 51.5
D
D
Notes:
1 AM = morning weekday peak-hour, PM = evening weekday peak-hour 2 East Boronda Road is a 5-lane divided arterial between Main Street and San Juan Grade Road 3 East Boronda Road is a 6-lane divided arterial between Main Street and San Juan Grade Road 4 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. LOS calculations conducted using the Synchro level of service analysis software package.
5 LOS = Level of service
Bold text indicates unacceptable operations by City of Salinas standards (LOS E or worse).

Source: Fehr & Peers, April 2010.

YEAR 2030 CURRENT GENERAL PLAN INTERSECTION STORAGE POCKET LENGHTS The Synchro files were converted to SimTraffic, a micro-simulation tool used to calculate vehicle storage requirements at intersections. Figure 1 shows the storage pocket estimates (calculated in feet) for the left and right turn lanes at the East Boronda Road / San Juan Grade Road intersection. The corresponding calculation sheets are attached.

Left turn storage pockets are typically sized to the greater of the maximum queue of the left turn movement or through movement queue. However, during the AM and PM peak hours, the leftturn lane will be blocked by the through vehicles (westbound in AM peak hour and eastbound in PM peak hour) with maximum queues greater than 600 feet in the AM peak hour westbound directions and greater than 1,000 feet in the PM peak hour eastbound direction. Using the typical approach would yield excessively long left-turn storage pockets. To avoid excessively long pocket lengths, the left turn storage pockets were estimated using the average queue distance (based on average of five (5) micro-simulation runs) plus the deceleration distance at 30 miles per hour (mph). In other words, on average vehicles will be able to decelerate from 30 mph and stop at the back of the average queue for the left turn movement within the length of the storage pocket. At 30 mph the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) specifies an approximate deceleration distance of 235 feet and the estimated average storage pocket length is approximately 100 to 200 feet under the five intersection configurations for the left turn approaches. Thus, the left turn storage pockets are estimated to be 350 to 400 feet.

The 250 foot right-turn lane storage pockets were sized for vehicles to merge across the bicycle lane and slow within the length of the storage pocket from 30 mile per hour (i.e., right-turn vehicles will begin to decelerate prior to the storage pocket). On East Boronda Road, the through movement queue will block the right-turn lane during the red phase, but maintain separation from Rob Russell and Tara Hullinger
April 15, 2010

Page 5 of 6 ends

the through vehicles as the right turn vehicles slow to make the right turn during the green phase.

The Salinas retail center driveway should be placed more than 400 feet east of the East Boronda Road and San Juan Grade Road intersection to accommodate the right turn lane storage distance and lane taper.

BICYCLE LANE TREATMENTS
Issues for pedestrians and bicyclist at intersections are typically focused on long crossing distances, turning conflicts, and high vehicle speeds. The widening of the East Boronda Road / San Juan Grade Road intersection can exacerbate these conditions. The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) provides guidance on striping bicycle lanes at intersections. Figure 2 illustrates bicycle lane treatments that clarify right-of-way, manage vehicle turning speeds and minimize the crossing distance to the extent possible for the westbound approach. The advantages and disadvantages of each treatment are described in Table 3.

TABLE 3

BICYCLE LANE TREATMENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A RIGHT-TURN LANE (EAST BORONDA ROAD AND SAN JUAN GRADE ROAD INTERSECTION) Description Advantages Disadvantages
Sweeping RightTurn Lane with
Large Pedestrian
Island
• Right-turn lane vehicles do not conflict
with bicyclist at intersection.
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distance
of east leg than separate right-turn
lane at intersection.
• Vehicles enter San Juan Grade
Road at higher speeds.
• Pedestrians crossing of right-turn
lane is uncontrolled
Separate Right
Turn Lane
(Recommended)
• Guides bicyclist to correct position at
intersections with a separate rightturn lane.
• Encourages motorist maneuvering
into the dedicated right-turn lane to
look for and yield to bicyclists.
• Defines the transition point for both
bicyclist and motorists.
• Minimizes conflict between right-turn
vehicles and through movement
bicyclist.
• Right-turn lane vehicles do not conflict
with bicyclist at intersection.
• For long right-turn lanes, bicyclist
may be overtaken on both sides
by motorists.
• On high-speed facilities, a long
transition area is needed,
increasing the length of the
potential conflict area.

Shared ThroughRight Lane
• Encourages motorist maneuvering
into the shared lane to look for and
yield to bicyclist.
• Defines the transition point for both
bicyclist and motorists.
• Right turn vehicle speeds lower than
sweeping right turn.
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distance
of east leg than separate right-turn
lane at intersection.
• Right hooking conflict between
right-turn vehicles and through
movement bicyclist not
addressed.

Source: Fehr & Peers, April 2010.

Rob Russell and Tara Hullinger
April 15, 2010

Page 6 of 6 ends

CONCLUSION
The separate right-turn lane without a pedestrian pork-chop island and bicycle lane meets City of Salinas level of service standards in Year 2030 with Current General Plan Conditions. This separate right-turn lane with a bicycle lane clarifies right-of-way, manages vehicle turning speeds and minimizes the crossing distance to the extent possible for the westbound approach.

Attachments

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 1_AM 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

#
$
%"
&
' () * + * , + (
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

%

#

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1

2 %1
/

1( 1() 1( 1( 1 1( 1() 1 1( 1() 1
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1(, 1 1 1(, /%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
1 1 1 1 1+) 1 1 1+) 1 1 1+) /%
6 . 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1
.1
/%
0 &

' *** *) *** )+) ) *** *)*( )* *** *)*( ), /%
6
. 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1
.1
/%
0 &
' *** *) *** )+) ) *** *)*( )* *** *)*( ), 6
5

4 67/ 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1(

8.91 /%
0 &
' )) * , (, *( , + , (+ +
:
."

&
' ,+ )) +

;

"
/%
0 &
' )) , (, ) , + ( (+ ,(

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

6
6

6

6 .
6 ## * + ) ,
6
.
6 ## + ,
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 (1 1* 1( 1( 1, 1 1
;
4
!
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 (1 1* 1( 1( 1, 1 1 8 "
.
!

1( 1 1, 1) 1) 1 1* 1* 1 1+ 1+

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1
$
%
=#

&#' 1 *1 1 *1 *1 1 *1 *1 1 *1 *1

;

&
' * ,)( * ,* ,+) , ) *( , +
#

6 1 1* 1* 1*+ 1* 1) 1( 1,
#

6
1 1 1

1+ 1,* 1+ 1+) 1 1 1*+ 1 1, 1* 1,
2

>%
4
. (1) 1 )1 1) (1 )1 *1+ 1+ 1+ *(1 1+ 6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
>%
4
. 1 1+ 1, *1* 1 1, 1) 1 1+ 1* *1
>%

&#' ,1 1+ )1 *1+ (1 )1) 1 1( ))1, *(1 )1) %

>
> > > > >
8

>%

&#' *1( *1 )1+ 1+
8

> >
-
#

"

7
8

%
>%
*1 7

%

7
$
%"

1++
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
1 "

%
#

&#' *1
-
#

2 % ?

+1@ -
2 %

>
8
%# #
6

.
& ' )

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 1_AM
2030_Boronda/SJG_AM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $% & '$' '& ( ($ )& & %$ '%) && $)
*

+! "
# ( % ) ' $( ' '% % '
$),! "
# () $ '% '%$ )$ % $& )% &' '' ) %(

-

"
# $ $ ( ( (
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# & & & & ') ) )

+/- "0# (
! +1
/2",# '
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# ( &) &$ $ & ') '
*

+! "
# $ & % $( $ ) &% $
$),! "
# $) )) )& %% $& &

-

"
# '( '( $& $&
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# ') )

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",#
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 2_AM 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

#
$
%"
&
' () * + * , + (
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

%

#

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1

2 %1
/

1( 1() 1( 1( 1 1( 1() 1 1( 1() 1
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1(, 1 1 1(, /%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
1 1 1 1 1+) 1 1 1+) 1 1 1+) /%
6 . 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1
.1
/%
0 &

' *** *) *** )+) ) *** *)*( )* *** *)*( ), /%
6
. 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1
.1
/%
0 &
' *** *) *** )+) ) *** *)*( )* *** *)*( ), 6
5

4 67/ 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1(

8.91 /%
0 &
' )) * , (, *( , + , (+ +
:
."

&
' ,+ )) +

;

"
/%
0 &
' )) , (, ) , + ( (+ ,(

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

6
6

6

6 .
6 ## * + ) ,
6
.
6 ## + ,
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 (1 1* 1( 1( 1, 1 1
;
4
!
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 (1 1* 1( 1( 1, 1 1 8 "
.
!

1( 1 1, 1) 1) 1 1* 1* 1 1+ 1+

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1
$
%
=#

&#' 1 *1 1 *1 *1 1 *1 *1 1 *1 *1

;

&
' * ,)( * ,* ,+) , ) *( , +
#

6 1 1* 1* 1*+ 1* 1) 1( 1,
#

6
1 1 1

1+ 1,* 1+ 1+) 1 1 1*+ 1 1, 1* 1,
2

>%
4
. (1) 1 )1 1) (1 )1 *1+ 1+ 1+ *(1 1+ 6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
>%
4
. 1 1+ 1, *1* 1 1, 1) 1 1+ 1* *1
>%

&#' ,1 1+ )1 *1+ (1 )1) 1 1( ))1, *(1 )1) %

>
> > > > >
8

>%

&#' *1( *1 )1+ 1+
8

> >
-
#

"

7
8

%
>%
*1 7

%

7
$
%"

1++
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
1 "

%
#

&#' *1
-
#

2 % ?

+1@ -
2 %

>
8
%# #
6

.
& ' )

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 2_AM
2030_Boronda/SJG_AM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $ $% & %& '' (& &( $&' &$ %)
*

+! "
# ) ) $ $(( $) '
)',! "
# )$ & $$' $&$ (% % %% '( ( $&$ '% &(

-

"
# ) ) % % %
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# ( ( ( ( $' ' '

+/- "0# )
! +1
/2",# %
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $ ( ) ( &
*

+! "
# $ & ' ' ( '' () (
)',! "
# %% % ' &$ )' '

-

"
# $% $% )( )(
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# $' '

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",#
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 3_AM 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

#
$
%"
&
' () * + * , + (
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

%

#

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1

2 %1
/

1( 1() 1( 1( 1( 1() 1 1( 1() 1
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1(, 1 1 1(, /%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
1 1 1 1(+ 1 1 1+) 1 1 1+)
/%
6 . 1() 1 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1
.1
/%
0 &

' *** *) *** ()+ *** *)*( )* *** *)*( ),
/%
6
. 1() 1 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1
.1
/%
0 &
' *** *) *** ()+ *** *)*( )* *** *)*( ),
6
5

4 67/ 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1(

8.91 /%
0 &
' )) * , (, *( , + , (+ +
:
."

&
' , )) +

;

"
/%
0 &
' )) , ( , + ( (+ ,(

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

6
6

6

6 .
6 ## * + ) ,
6
.
6 ## ,
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 1* 1( 1( 1, 1 1

;
4
!
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 1* 1( 1( 1, 1 1
8 "
.
!

1( 1 1, 1) 1 1* 1* 1 1+ 1+

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1
$
%
=#

&#' 1 *1 1 *1 1 *1 *1 1 *1 *1

;

&
' * ,)( * , ) *( , +
#

6 1 1* 1* 1) 1* 1) 1( 1,
#

6
1 1

1+ 1,* 1+ 1 1 1*+ 1 1, 1* 1,
2

>%
4
. (1) 1 )1 *1+ )1 *1+ 1+ 1+ *(1 1+
6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
>%
4
. 1 1+ 1, 1 1, 1) 1 1+ 1* *1
>%

&#' ,1 1+ )1 )1) )1) 1 1( ))1, *(1 )1)
%

> > > > > > >
8

>%

&#' *1( )1 )1+ 1+
8

:
> > >
-
#

"

7
8

%
>%
)1* 7

%

>
7
$
%"

1(+
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
1 "

%
#

&#' *1
-
#

2 % ?

++1*@ -
2 %

8
%# #
6

.
& ' )

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 3_AM
2030_Boronda/SJG_AM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $%& % '' ( ' '% '&) () %( %
*

+! "
# & ' % $ &) &'$ &% $ (
%),! "
# && % $ $(' )% $$ $% $ )) ' '%

-

"
# % % ' ' ' $'
.

/- "0# ) ( $
! +1
/2",# ' '% $

+
2
"
# ( ( ( ( ) )

+/- "0# $)
! +1
/2",# $)
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $ ( % ) & (
*

+! "
# ( ( ( $ )$ & '$
%),! "
# ) & % %% % )

-

"
# $' %( %(
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# $) )

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",#
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 4_AM 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

#
$
%"
&
' () * + * , + (
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

%

#

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1

2 %1
/

1( 1( 1( 1( 1 1( 1() 1 1( 1()
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1( 1 1 1(+ 1 1(+ /%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
1 1 1 1 1+) 1 1 1+) 1 1(
/%
6 . 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1 1() 1
.1
/%
0 &

' *** ))+ *** )+) ) *** *)*( )+ *** *)(
/%
6
. 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1 1 1() 1
.1
/%
0 &
' *** ))+ *** )+) ) *** *)*( )+ *** *)(
6
5

4 67/ 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1(

8.91 /%
0 &
' )) * , (, *( , + , (+ +
:
."

&
' ,+ * +

;

"
/%
0 &
' )) , (, ) , + (+ *

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

6
6

=
6

6 .
6 ## * + ) * ,
6
.
6 ## +
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 (1 1* )1 1* 1, 1

;
4
!
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 (1 1* )1 1* 1, 1
8 "
.
!

1( 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1+

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1
$
%
>#

&#' 1 *1 1 *1 *1 1 *1 1 1 *1

;

&
' * *( )( ,+ ) + *( *+( )+
#

6 1 1 1* 1*+ 1* 1) 1 1( 1
#

6
1 1

1+ 1 1+ 1+) 1 1 1*+ 1 1 1,
2

?%
4
. (1, (1, )1 1, (1 )1 *1+ *,1* 1( 1
6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
?%
4
. 1 1 1, *1* 1 1, 1) 1 1( 1
?%

&#' ,1 (1+ )1+ *1 (1 )1 1* *,1* ))1+ 1
%

?
? ? ? ?
8

?%

&#' +1) *1* 1 +1
8

? ?
-
#

"

7
8

%
?%
**1( 7

%

7
$
%"

1+(
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
1 "

%
#

&#' *1
-
#

2 % @

+*1A -
2 %

8
%# #
6

.
& ' )

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 4_AM
2030_Boronda/SJG_AM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $% &' ( %' '' '% )% $ $$' ($% '
*

+! "
# & )$ ) $' $ ()) %( (& &
&%,! "
# '( &% & ) )) ' %' )$ $' ($ ))

-

"
# % % % ' ' '
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",# (

+
2
"
# ) ) ) ) (% %

+/- "0# (
! +1
/2",#
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# ) ( $ ' ) &$
*

+! "
# % % $ $ ' (' ') $
&%,! "
# '% &% %$ & )$ $

-

"
# (& (& &)( &)(
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# % % %

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",#
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 5_AM 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

#
$
%"
&
' () * + * , + (
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

%

#

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1

2 %1
/

1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1() 1 1( 1()
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1(+ 1 1(+
/%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
/
1 1 1 1(+ 1 1 1+) 1 1(
/%
6 . 1() 1 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1

.1
/%
0 &

' *** ))+ *** () *** *)*( )+ *** *)(
/%
6
. 1() 1 1() 1 1() 1 1 1() 1

.1
/%
0 &
' *** ))+ *** () *** *)*( )+ *** *)(
6
5

4 67/ 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1( 1(

8.91 /%
0 &
' )) * , (, *( , + , (+ +
:
."

&
' , * +

;

"
/%
0 &
' )) , ( , + (+ *

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

=
6

6 .
6 ## * + ) * ,
6
.
6 ##
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 1* )1 1* 1, 1

;
4
!
&#' 1 )1* 1 (1 1* )1 1* 1, 1
8 "
.
!

1( 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1+

&#' ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1
$
%
>#

&#' 1 *1 1 *1 1 *1 1 1 *1

;

&
' * *( ) + *( *+( )+
#

6 1 1 1* 1) 1* 1) 1 1( 1
#

6
1

1+ 1 1+ 1 1 1*+ 1 1 1,
2

?%
4
. (1, (1, )1 *1( )1 *1+ *,1* 1( 1
6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
?%
4
. 1 1 1, 1* 1, 1) 1 1( 1
?%

&#' ,1 (1+ )1+ )*1 )1 1* *,1* ))1+ 1
%

? ? ? ? ? ?
8

?%

&#' +1) )*1 1 +1
8

:
? ? ?
-
#

"

7
8

%
?%
)1 7

%

?
7
$
%"

1(+
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
1 "

%
#

&#' *1
-
#

2 % @

(1A -
2 %

8
%# #
6

.
& ' )

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 5_AM
2030_Boronda/SJG_AM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $% $% &' ( & ( %' () ($ (') ' $
*

+! "
# ' % ( '' ' '( (& ( ' )
$),! "
# '' () & & ' )( $' $' $'% $) )( (

-

"
# ) ) ) ( ( (
.

/- "0# ( ' &
! +1
/2",# % &'

+
2
"
# % % %) %) ) )

+/- "0# &'
! +1
/2",# &'
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# & % (' &%
*

+! "
# ) % ' ) & $ '
$),! "
# (( )& () $$ '' (

-

"
# &$ &$ $%& $%&
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# ) )

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",#
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 1_PM 2030_Boronda/SJG_PM

#
$
%"
&
' ( ) ( ((* + ,* ( (( *
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%

#

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

2 %1
/

1, 1,* 1, 1, 1 1, 1,* 1 1, 1,* 1
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1,+ 1 1 1,+ /%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
1 1 1 1 1)* 1 1 1)* 1 1 1)* /%
6 . 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1
.1
/%
0 &

' ((( (* ((( *)* *(+ ((( (*(, *+ ((( (*(, * /%
6
. 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1
.1
/%
0 &
' ((( (* ((( *)* *(+ ((( (*(, *+ ((( (*(, * 6
5

4 67/ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

8.91 /%
0 &
' * + * (, (* ( ( ++
:
."

&
' * +

;

"
/%
0 &
' * ,) * *( (, + ( (

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

6
6

6

6 .
6 ## ( ) * +
6
.
6 ## ) +
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1+ ++1( 1 *+1, *+1, 1* (1+ (1+ )1 1 1
;
4
!
&#' 1+ ++1( 1 *+1, *+1, 1* (1+ (1+ )1 1 1 8 "
.
!

1+ 1, 1, 1 1 1, 1) 1) 1+ 1* 1*

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
$
%
=#

&#' 1 (1 1 (1 (1 1 (1 (1 1 (1 (1

;

&
' **( ( *) +* , +( +, * *(
#

6 1( 1 1 1) 1+ 1 1+ 1+
#

6
1 1( 1(

1)( 1 1, 1++ 1 1 1+( 1 1 1 1)
2

>%
4
. *1 ((1, *,1 (1) 1 *,1+ *1 *1+ +(1 *1+ ,1) 6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
>%
4
. ,1 ,,1 1( 1 1 +1 1 1 (1* 1* 1
>%

&#' +(1) ((1 1 (1+ 1, +*1) *(1( +1) (+1* *1 *1 %

> / > >
8

>%

&#' +1, (*1+ +1( 1(
8

: / >
-
#

"

7
8

%
>%
1 7

%

/
7
$
%"

1
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
(1 "

%
#

&#' 1
-
#

2 % ?

1,@ -
2 %

7
8
%# #
6

.
& ' *

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 1_PM
2030_Boronda/SJG_PM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $ %$ $ $& ' &$ (' %% &$ %$ )%
*

+! "
# & ' $( $ ' (( $) ) )% '
'$,! "
# ' %&& $% $& $) %' ($ ($$ (' )' ($ '

-

"
# &' &' &% &% &%
.

/- "0# % %
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# % % ($ $ $

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",# )) (
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# ' (( (% % ) $ %(
*

+! "
# ( % (( (( $( %' & '
'$,! "
# $ ) $$ %$ () &)

-

"
# ((( ((( '%% '%%
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# ($ $

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",#
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 2_PM 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

#
$
%"
&
' ( ) ( ((* + ,* ( (( *
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%

#

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

2 %1
/

1, 1,* 1, 1, 1 1, 1,* 1 1, 1,* 1
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1,+ 1 1 1,+ /%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
1 1 1 1 1)* 1 1 1)* 1 1 1)* /%
6 . 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1
.1
/%
0 &

' ((( (* ((( *)* *(+ ((( (*(, *+ ((( (*(, * /%
6
. 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1
.1
/%
0 &
' ((( (* ((( *)* *(+ ((( (*(, *+ ((( (*(, * 6
5

4 67/ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

8.91 /%
0 &
' * + * (, (* ( ( ++
:
."

&
' * +

;

"
/%
0 &
' * ,) * *( (, + ( (

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

6
6

6

6 .
6 ## ( ) * +
6
.
6 ## ) +
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1+ ++1( 1 *+1, *+1, 1* (1+ (1+ )1 1 1
;
4
!
&#' 1+ ++1( 1 *+1, *+1, 1* (1+ (1+ )1 1 1 8 "
.
!

1+ 1, 1, 1 1 1, 1) 1) 1+ 1* 1*

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
$
%
=#

&#' 1 (1 1 (1 (1 1 (1 (1 1 (1 (1

;

&
' **( ( *) +* , +( +, * *(
#

6 1( 1 1 1) 1+ 1 1+ 1+
#

6
1 1( 1(

1)( 1 1, 1++ 1 1 1+( 1 1 1 1)
2

>%
4
. *1 ((1, *,1 (1) 1 *,1+ *1 *1+ +(1 *1+ ,1) 6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
>%
4
. ,1 ,,1 1( 1 1 +1 1 1 (1* 1* 1
>%

&#' +(1) ((1 1 (1+ 1, +*1) *(1( +1) (+1* *1 *1 %

> / > >
8

>%

&#' +1, (*1+ +1( 1(
8

: / >
-
#

"

7
8

%
>%
1 7

%

/
7
$
%"

1
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
(1 "

%
#

&#' 1
-
#

2 % ?

1,@ -
2 %

7
8
%# #
6

.
& ' *

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 2_PM
2030_Boronda/SJG_PM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $ $ %& % % ' '$ % % '(' $$ (
)

*! "
# ( % +( ( % %( (( & & +(
+%,! "
# &% $%' %'( %% &( '+ '(+ '++ ' '& %'

-

"
# &+ &+ &$ &$ &$
.

/- "0# $ %
! *1
/2",#

*
2
"
# $ $ '% % %

*/- "0#
! *1
/2",# (+
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# '$ $ (' ' ''& %$ '%
)

*! "
# '% $' $ + (( &
+%,! "
# '+ ' '% '$' $$ '$ +%

-

"
# ''' ''' +$$ +$$
.

/- "0#
! *1
/2",#

*
2
"
# '% %

*/- "0#
! *1
/2",#
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 3_PM 2030_Boronda/SJG_PM

#
$
%"
&
' ( ) ( ((* + ,* ( (( *
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%

#

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

2 %1
/

1, 1,* 1, 1, 1, 1,* 1 1, 1,* 1
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,+ 1 1 1,+ /%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
1 1 1 1,) 1 1 1)* 1 1 1)*
/%
6 . 1,* 1 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1
.1
/%
0 &

' ((( (* ((( ,( ((( (*(, *+ ((( (*(, *
/%
6
. 1,* 1 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1
.1
/%
0 &
' ((( (* ((( ,( ((( (*(, *+ ((( (*(, *
6
5

4 67/ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

8.91 /%
0 &
' * + * (, (* ( ( ++
:
."

&
' ) * +

;

"
/%
0 &
' * ,) * +, (, + ( (

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

6
6

6

6 .
6 ## ( ) * +
6
.
6 ## +
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1+ ++1( 1 *+1, 1* (1+ (1+ )1 1 1

;
4
!
&#' 1+ ++1( 1 *+1, 1* (1+ (1+ )1 1 1
8 "
.
!

1+ 1, 1, 1 1, 1) 1) 1+ 1* 1*

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
$
%
=#

&#' 1 (1 1 (1 1 (1 (1 1 (1 (1

;

&
' **( ( ,* , +( +, * *(
#

6 1( 1 1 1( 1+ 1 1+ 1+
#

6
1( 1(

1)( 1 1, 1) 1 1+( 1 1 1 1)
2

>%
4
. *1 ((1, *,1 ((1 *,1+ *1 *1+ +(1 *1+ ,1)
6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
>%
4
. ,1 ,,1 1( 1( +1 1 1 (1* 1* 1
>%

&#' +(1) ((1 1 (+1 +*1) *(1( +1) (+1* *1 *1 %

/ > > / > >
8

>%

&#' +1, 1 +1( 1(
8

: / >
-
#

"

7
8

%
>%
1 7

%

/
7
$
%"

1
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
(1 "

%
#

&#' 1
-
#

2 % ?

1,@ -
2 %

7
8
%# #
6

.
& ' *

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 3_PM
2030_Boronda/SJG_PM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $% &' ' '% (% '' '% '%& &' $ '&
)

*! "
# + $ '+ ' $% $ +' %+ $( +$
$',! "
# % &(( ' ' && % +% ' ''& '%

-

"
# %$ %$ %& %& %& +++
.

/- "0# &
! *1
/2",#

*
2
"
# & & ' '

*/- "0#
! *1
/2",# ($
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# &' '& ++ +$ +$ + '+
)

*! "
# ' %& ' $& %& ('
$',! "
# +% +'$ +(' +( $( %

-

"
# +++ $&& $&&
.

/- "0#
! *1
/2",#

*
2
"
# +' '

*/- "0# '
! *1
/2",# '
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 4_PM 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

#
$
%"
&
' ( ) ( ((* + ,* ( (( *
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%

#

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

2 %1
/

1, 1, 1, 1, 1 1, 1,* 1 1, 1,*
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1,) 1 1,) /%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
1 1 1 1 1)* 1 1 1)* 1 1,
/%
6 . 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1
.1
/%
0 &

' ((( **, ((( *)* *(+ ((( (*(, ** ((( (+)
/%
6
. 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1
.1
/%
0 &
' ((( **, ((( *)* *(+ ((( (*(, ** ((( (+)
6
5

4 67/ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

8.91 /%
0 &
' * + * (, (* ( ( ++
:
."

&
' ( +,

;

"
/%
0 &
' * ,) * * (, (* ( (

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

6
6

=
6

6 .
6 ## ( ) * ( +
6
.
6 ## )
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1* ++1( 1 *1 *1 1* 1+ (1) )1 ,1

;
4
!
&#' 1* ++1( 1 *1 *1 1* 1+ (1) )1 ,1
8 "
.
!

1+ 1* 1, 1( 1( 1, 1 1+ 1+ 1

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
$
%
>#

&#' 1 (1 1 (1 (1 1 (1 1 1 (1

;

&
' *** * (* ) +*) , + * + **
#

6 1( 1, 1 1) 1+ 1 1 1+ 1
#

6
1 1+

1) 1,, 1) 1+* 1( 1 1++ 1 1( 1+)
2

?%
4
. *1 ((1 *,1 (1 1 *,1 *1+ *1 +1* *1
6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
?%
4
. ,1 *1, 1* 1 1 *1+ 1+ *1 1, 1
?%

&#' +(1 ,1 +,1+ (1, 1 +1) *1 *1 (1 *)1(
%

? ? /
8

?%

&#' *1 (1) **1 )1
8

: ?
? /
-
#

"

7
8

%
?%
*1 7

%

?
7
$
%"

1,
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
((1 "

%
#

&#' 1
-
#

2 % @

,1A -
2 %

/
8
%# #
6

.
& ' *

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 4_PM
2030_Boronda/SJG_PM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $ %& &' ( ($ ' $(( ) &' $' %
*

+! "
# )' $$ %$ ) () ' & )& $ )
(&,! "
# ) %' '' %'% %%& '( (& $%) )'

-

"
# & & & )% )% )%
.

/- "0# & $
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# % % $& &

+/- "0# ) $
! +1
/2",# '
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# )' $' & $$( %) ') '& $%
*

+! "
# () $) % )' &&
(&,! "
# &( % $& $% % '' % $)

-

"
# $$$ $$$ (%) (%)
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# & & &

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",#
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Configuration 5_PM 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

#
$
%"
&
' ( ) ( ((* + ,* ( (( *
-.
%
/%
0 &
%' , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%

#

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

2 %1
/

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,* 1 1, 1,*
/
34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,) 1 1,)
/%34
.3 5# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
/
1 1 1 1,) 1 1 1)* 1 1,
/%
6 . 1,* 1 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1

.1
/%
0 &

' ((( **, ((( ,( ((( (*(, ** ((( (+)
/%
6
. 1,* 1 1,* 1 1,* 1 1 1,* 1

.1
/%
0 &
' ((( **, ((( ,( ((( (*(, ** ((( (+)
6
5

4 67/ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

8.91 /%
0 &
' * + * (, (* ( ( ++
:
."

&
' ) +,

;

"
/%
0 &
' * ,) * +, (, (* ( (

%1
6.#1
&<

%1
5#
&<

'
"

6

=
6

6 .
6 ## ( ) * ( +
6
.
6 ##
8 "
.
;
4
;
&#' 1* ++1( 1 *1 1* 1+ (1) )1 ,1

;
4
!
&#' 1* ++1( 1 *1 1* 1+ (1) )1 ,1
8 "
.
!

1+ 1* 1, 1( 1, 1 1+ 1+ 1

&#' +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
$
%
>#

&#' 1 (1 1 (1 1 (1 1 1 (1

;

&
' *** * (* , + * + **
#

6 1( 1, 1 1( 1+ 1 1 1+ 1
#

6
1+

1) 1,, 1) 1, 1 1++ 1 1( 1+)
2

?%
4
. *1 ((1 *,1 ((1 *,1 *1+ *1 +1* *1
6 !
##

/

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

%
?%
4
. ,1 *1, 1* 1 *1+ 1+ *1 1, 1
?%

&#' +(1 ,1 +,1+ (*1 +1) *1 *1 (1 *)1(
%

? ? ? ? /
8

?%

&#' *1 (,1* **1 )1
8

: ? ? ? /
-
#

"

7
8

%
?%
*1* 7

%

?
7
$
%"

1,
8 "
.

%
!

&#'
((1 "

%
#

&#' 1
-
#

2 % @

,1A -
2 %

/
8
%# #
6

.
& ' *

%

;

"
Queuing and Blocking Report Configuration 5_PM
2030_Boronda/SJG_PM

Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $ %& & && & ' $( &%( %%& )' &) '
*

+! "
# ' $% $& ' )) & % $$% $ &$ ' ('
(&,! "
# )& %' )$ %(& %' )$ '' &% % % $ &&

-

"
# & & & '% '% '%
.

/- "0# % &
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# % % & &

+/- "0# ) $
! +1
/2",# & %
Intersection: 9: Boronda Rd. & San Juan Grade Rd.

! "
# $( ( $& $ $$$ $%
*

+! "
# $& & ' (& ( ((
(&,! "
# % ( $$% $( () $

-

"
# $$$ $$$ (%' (%'
.

/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

+
2
"
# & &

+/- "0#
! +1
/2",#

APPENDIX J:

EAST BORONDA ROAD AND SAN JUAN GRADE ROAD

CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLANS

2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020
T 408.201.2752 [email protected]

HARVEST MOON AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEE

HOUSING PROJECT
(QUATTRIN RANCH)

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

DRAFT REPORT

MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Tony Flores
Monterey, CA 93940
Prepared by
Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer
Gilroy, CA 95020
February 28, 2020
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE.................................................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Scope of Work .................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Study Network .................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Analysis Scenarios.............................................................................................. 2

1.4 Traffic Operation Evaluation Methodologies........................................................ 3

1.5 Level of Service Standards - Study Network ....................................................... 3

1.6 Significance Criteria............................................................................................ 4

1.6.1 Monterey County................................................................................................. 4

1.6.2 City of Salinas..................................................................................................... 4

1.6.3 Caltrans .............................................................................................................. 5

1.7 Impact Fees ........................................................................................................ 5

1.7.1 Transportation Agency for Monterey County ....................................................... 5

1.7.2 Monterey County Traffic Impact Fee ................................................................... 5

1.7.3 Salinas Traffic Improvement Program................................................................. 5

1.8 Unique Project Traffic Characteristics ................................................................. 6 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................... 8

2.1 Existing Traffic Network ...................................................................................... 8

2.2 Existing Pedestrian Network ............................................................................... 9

2.3 Existing Bicycle Network..................................................................................... 9

2.4 Existing Transit Service......................................................................................10

2.5 Existing Conditions Traffic Circulation................................................................11

2.5.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................11

2.5.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................12

2.5.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................12 3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – AG HOUSING ........................................13

3.1 Ag Housing Project Description..........................................................................13

3.2 Project Trip Generation – Ag Housing With Casa Boronda Data........................13 Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page ii

3.3 Unique Project Trip Generation Characteristics .................................................14

3.4 Project Access Improvements............................................................................15

3.5 Existing Plus Project Condition Traffic Circulation – Ag Housing........................15

3.5.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................15

3.5.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................16

3.5.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................16

3.5.4 Transit Circulation..............................................................................................17

3.6 Impact Fees .......................................................................................................17 4 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – APARTMENTS.......................................18

4.1 Project Alternative Description ...........................................................................18

4.2 Project Trip Generation – Apartments................................................................18

4.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment – Apartments......................................18

4.4 Project Access Improvements............................................................................18

4.5 Existing Plus Project Condition Traffic Circulation – Apartments........................19

4.5.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................19

4.5.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................20

4.5.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................20

4.5.4 Transit Circulation..............................................................................................20

4.6 Impact Fees .......................................................................................................20 5 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS......................................................................................22

5.1 Derivation of Background Condition Traffic Volumes .........................................22

5.2 Background Traffic Conditions ...........................................................................22

5.2.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................22

5.2.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................22

5.2.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................23

5.2.4 Transit Circulation..............................................................................................23 6 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – AG HOUSING ...............................24

6.1 Derivation of Background Plus Project – Ag Housing Condition Traffic Volumes24

6.2 Background Plus Project Traffic Conditions – Ag Housing .................................24

6.2.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................24 Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page iii

6.2.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................26

6.2.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................26

6.2.4 Transit Circulation..............................................................................................26 7 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – APARTMENTS..............................27

7.1 Derivation of Background Plus Project Condition Traffic Volumes – Apartments27

7.2 Background Plus Project Traffic Conditions – Apartments .................................27

7.2.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................27

7.2.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................29

7.2.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................30

7.2.4 Transit Circulation..............................................................................................30 8 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS .....................................................31

8.1 Derivation of Cumulative Without Project Condition Volumes ............................31

8.2 Network Modifications under Cumulative Conditions..........................................31

8.3 Cumulative Without Project Traffic Conditions ...................................................32

8.3.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................32

8.3.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................33

8.3.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................33

8.3.4 Transit Circulation..............................................................................................33 9 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – AG HOUSING..................................34

9.1 Derivation of Cumulative Plus Project Condition Traffic Volumes – Ag Housing.34

9.2 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions – Ag Housing ..................................34

9.2.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................34

9.2.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................36

9.2.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................37

9.2.4 Transit Circulation..............................................................................................37 10 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – APARTMENTS ................................38

10.1 Derivation of Cumulative Plus Project Condition Traffic Volumes – Apartments.38

10.2 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions – Apartments...................................38

10.2.1 Intersection Operations......................................................................................38

10.2.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................41 Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page iv

10.2.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................42

10.2.4 Transit Circulation..............................................................................................42 11 SITE ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION...........................................................43

11.1 Vehicle Circulation .............................................................................................43

11.2 Pedestrian Circulation........................................................................................43

11.3 Bicycle Circulation..............................................................................................43 12 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED........................................................................................44

12.1 Ag Housing VMT................................................................................................44

12.2 Apartment VMT..................................................................................................44 13 SUMMARY OF PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES ...........................................................46 14 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................48

14.1 List of References..............................................................................................48

14.2 List of Contacts ..................................................................................................49 Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page v

LIST OF EXHIBITS

1. Project Location Map and Study Area

2. Project Site Plan

3. Existing Peak Hour Volumes – AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes 4A. Intersection Levels of Service
4B. Recommended Intersection Improvements

5. Project Trip Generation

6. Project Trip Distribution (Ag Employee Housing)

7. Project Trip Assignment – Ag Employee Housing – AM and PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Volumes

8. Existing Plus Project Conditions – Ag Employee Housing – AM and PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Volumes

9. Project Trip Distribution – (Apartments)

10. Project Trip Assignment – Apartments – AM and PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Volumes

11. Existing Plus Project Conditions – Apartments – AM and PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Volumes

12. Background Conditions – AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes

13. Background Plus Project Conditions – Ag Employee Housing – AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes

14. Background Plus Project Conditions – Apartments – AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes

15. Cumulative Without Project Conditions – AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes

16. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – Ag Employee Housing – AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes

17. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – Apartments – AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes 18A. Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Calculation (Ag Employee Housing) 18B. Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Calculation (Apartments) Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page vi

LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Level of Service Descriptions
B. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities near Project Site C. Intersection Traffic Volume Counts
D. Volume Count Comparison
E. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Existing Conditions F. Casa Boronda Driveway Counts
G. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Existing Plus Project Ag Housing Conditions H. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Existing Plus Project Apartments Conditions I. Background Growth Derivation
J. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Background Conditions K. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Background Plus Project Ag Housing Conditions
L. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Background Plus Project Apartments Conditions
M. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Cumulative Without Project Conditions N. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Cumulative Plus Project Ag Housing Conditions
O. Intersection Level of Service Calculations – Cumulative Plus Project Apartments Conditions
P. Monterey County Regional Trip Length Calculation
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 1

PREFACE
This report was originally completed November 11, 2019. There has since been a change in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA regarding determination of transportation impacts as well as a reduction in the size of the Project Apartment Alternative. These two changes are discussed below.

1. Change in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Impact Criteria
In accordance with California Senate Bill 743, transportation impacts are now being determined by Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than level of service (LOS). This change occurred subsequent to the preparation of this traffic study in November 2019. Section 12 of this study provides an analysis of VMT for CEQA purposes. The County of Monterey and City of Salinas have not adopted methodologies or thresholds of significance at this time. However, the determination of impacts can be made based on the estimates included herein.

Impacts identified in this report based on LOS are no longer CEQA impacts. However, analysis does identify locations where traffic operations will not conform to City of Salinas, County of Monterey or Caltrans policies. The need for project contribution toward improvements in traffic operations recommended in this report are therefore now determined by these agencies without needing to consider whether the improvements or lack thereof would result in full mitigation of anticipated impacts.

2. Change in Description of Project Apartment Alternative The following traffic study is based on a preliminary project description that included two project alternatives. The first was a 1,200-bed agricultural employee (H2A) housing facility. The second was 200 standard apartments. Subsequent to the preparation of the study, the apartment alternative was reduced to 150 standard apartments.

The analysis of the 1,200-bed H2A housing facility continues to reflect the current proposal. The analysis of the 200-unit apartment alternative overstates the trip generation and resulting impacts at the study intersections. The locations where the 200-unit Apartment alternative were expected to result in traffic operations below acceptable levels in County, City or Caltrans policies will not change for the 150-unit Apartment alternative. This is because the locations are already operating worse than acceptable levels or are expected to in the future without the project, the Apartment alternative would add traffic above the historic significance threshold and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures alone would not eliminate the impact. 1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Quattrin Ranch project would be located in the Boronda Area of Monterey County, California. The project site covers approximately 7 acres on the west side of North Davis Road at West Rossi Street. The project has two possible alternatives:

1. 1,200 beds for agricultural employee housing; OR

2. 200 standard apartments.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 2
Both alternatives are analyzed in this report.

The locations of the Project site and study area are indicated in Exhibit 1. The project site plan is shown in Exhibit 2.

This report summarizes the analysis of potential traffic impacts associated with both alternatives of the proposed Project as well as cumulative impacts. Existing, Background and Cumulative conditions are also analyzed with and without the Project. Vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation are evaluated at the Project site and the immediate surrounding street network.

1.1 Scope of Work
This report addresses the following topics:

1. Existing vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation on the surrounding street network.

2. Assessment of potential impacts to vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation due to the Project, and recommendations to minimize or alleviate those impacts.

3. Assessment of potential background and cumulative traffic impacts.

4. Site access and on-site circulation assessment.

5. Estimation of the project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

1.2 Study Network
The AM and PM peak periods were analyzed at the following six intersections, which includes the agency having jurisdiction. Their locations are indicated on Exhibit 1.

1. Intersection 1 – Adams Street / West Laurel Drive (City of Salinas)

2. Intersection 2 – US 101 Northbound Ramps / West Laurel Drive (Caltrans)

3. Intersection 3 – US 101 Southbound Offramp / West Laurel Drive (Caltrans)

4. Intersection 4 – North Davis Road / Calle Del Adobe – West Laurel Drive (City of Salinas)

5. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe (Monterey County)

6. Intersection 6 – North Davis Road / Post Drive – Commercial Driveway (City of Salinas)

7. Intersection 7 – North Davis Road / West Rossi Street (City of Salinas)

8. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street (Caltrans)

9. Intersection 9 – Davis Road Southbound Ramps – Market Circle / West Market Street (State Route 183) (Caltrans)

10. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183) (Caltrans)

11. Intersection 11 – Davis Road / Blanco Road (Monterey County)

12. Intersection 12 – North Main Street / Alvin Drive (City of Salinas)

13. Intersection 13 – North Main Street / Laurel Drive (City of Salinas)

1.3 Analysis Scenarios
Traffic operations for the following analysis scenarios were analyzed:

1. Existing Conditions

2. Existing Plus Project Conditions (both project alternatives)

3. Background Conditions

4. Background Plus Project Conditions (both project alternatives)

5. Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 3

6. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (both project alternatives) Improvements recommended to mitigate impacts for each development scenario are recommended where warranted.

1.4 Traffic Operation Evaluation Methodologies
Intersection traffic operations were evaluated based upon the level of service (LOS) concept. LOS is a qualitative description of an intersection’s operations, ranging from LOS A to LOS F. Level of Service “A” represents free flow uncongested traffic conditions. Level of Service “F” represents highly congested traffic conditions with unacceptable delay to vehicles at intersections. The intermediate levels of service represent incremental levels of congestion and delay between these two extremes. LOS descriptions for each type of existing traffic control at the study intersections (i.e., signal, all-way stop and one-/two-way stop) are included as Appendix A.

Intersection traffic operations were evaluated using the Synchro© traffic analysis software (Version 10) using both the 2010 and 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies. The average delay is then correlated to a level of service. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, only the vehicle delay for side street traffic is analyzed. LOS for each side street movement is based on the distribution of gaps in the major street traffic stream and driver judgment in selecting gaps. Improvements are warranted when a side street approach reaches LOS F for two-way stopcontrolled intersections. When using the HCM 2010 and 2000 methods for the analysis of signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, the overall intersection delay is used to determine LOS.

Intersections 1 and 2 (Adams Street / West Laurel Drive and US 101 Northbound Ramps / West Laurel Drive are operated by the same signal controller. The HCM 2010 cannot analyze intersections that share a controller. Hence, these two intersections are analyzed using the HCM 2000 methodologies. The remaining four study intersections are analyzed using the HCM 2010 methodologies.

Also, traffic signals at Intersections 12 and 13 North Main Street / Alvin Drive and North Main Street / Laurel Drive are coordinated using the InSync adaptive traffic control system. This system optimizes the signal phase lengths and their sequence and also coordinates traffic flow between adjacent InSync-controlled signals. Currently, there is no process to model InSync signal operations in computerized operations software; hence the HCM 2010 methodologies are used to assess operations at these intersections. This analysis therefore constitutes a conservative assessment of operations at these two intersections.

1.5 Level of Service Standards - Study Network
This study assesses operations at intersections under three different jurisdictions – City of Salinas, Monterey County and Caltrans. Both the City of Salinas and Monterey County have an overall level of service (LOS) standard of LOS D. The overall Caltrans level of service is the transition between LOS C and LOS D, abbreviated herein as LOS C-D.

As noted in Section 1.4, the Highway Capacity Manual does not provide overall levels of service for one-way stop-controlled intersections; rather, it only provides side-street operations for this Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 4
type of traffic control. Side-street operations represent delay for the entire stop-controlled approach, regardless of the number of lanes. For the purposes of this analysis, a standard of LOS E is applied to side-street operations at these intersections, given that intersection improvements such as signalization and channelization are generally not warranted until the side street LOS is F. Also, side street traffic volumes are typically much lower than volumes on the major street and only represent a small portion of the overall intersection operations.

1.6 Significance Criteria
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, a Project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The following significance criteria have been used within this study:

1.6.1 Monterey County
For the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur at any intersection under the jurisdiction of Monterey County in the following circumstances:

Signalized Intersection (Intersection 11):
• A significant impact would occur if an intersection operating at LOS A, B, C, or D preProject degrades to E or F with the addition of Project traffic. • For intersections already operating at unacceptable level E or F pre-Project, any increase (one vehicle) in traffic is considered significant.

One- or Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection (Intersection 5):
• A significant impact would occur if the side-street at an intersection operating at LOS A, B, C, D or E pre-Project degrades to LOS F with Project traffic; or • If any traffic signal warrant is met with the addition of Project traffic; or • For side-streets already operating at LOS F pre-Project, the addition of any Project traffic during the deficient peak hour would be considered significant, regardless of its effects on delay.

1.6.2 City of Salinas
For the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur at any study intersection under the jurisdiction of the City of Salinas in the following circumstances:

Signalized Intersection (Intersections 1, 4, 6-7, 12-13):
• A significant impact would occur if an intersection operating at LOS A, B, C, or D preProject degrades to E or F with the addition of Project traffic. • For intersections already operating at unacceptable level E or F pre-Project, any increase (one vehicle) in traffic is considered significant.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 5

1.6.3 Caltrans
For the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur at any intersection or roadway segment under the jurisdictions of Caltrans in the following circumstances:

Signalized Intersection (Intersections 2-3, 8-10):
• A significant impact would occur if an intersection operating at LOS A, B, or C pre-Project degrades to D, E or F with the addition of Project traffic; or • For intersections already operating at LOS D, E, or F pre-Project, a significant impact would occur if the project would cause overall delay to increase by at least 0.1 seconds.

1.7 Impact Fees

1.7.1 Transportation Agency for Monterey County
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) and its member jurisdictions have adopted a county-wide, regional development impact fee to cover the costs for studies and construction of many roadway improvements throughout Monterey County. This impact fee, which went into effect on August 27, 2008, is applied to new development within Monterey County.

The governing document for the fee is the Regional Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (March 26, 2008) prepared by Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. The Regional Impact Fee Nexus Study Update was updated in October 2018 by Wood Rodgers.

TAMC, Monterey County and Caltrans have agreed that the payment of the TAMC fee satisfies the Project’s fair share contribution to cumulative impact mitigation throughout the regional highway system. This includes highways that will operate deficiently but no capital improvement Project is programmed to correct the deficiency. Projects partially funded by the TAMC fee in North Monterey County and the vicinity of Salinas include the following. Additional funding will be provided by Measure X, the Transportation Sales Tax measure. These local funding sources are anticipated to leverage State and federal funding sources to fully fund the improvements. Toll roads are also being considered as a funding source.

1. TAMC Improvement 2 – SR 156 Widening from US 101 to Castroville Boulevard

2. TAMC Improvement 4 - Davis Road North from Blanco Road to Market Street (SR183)

3. TAMC Improvement 5 – Davis Road South from Blanco Road to Reservation Road, including replacement of bridge over Salinas River

4. TAMC Improvement 10 – US 101 Widening from Airport Boulevard to Boronda Road

1.7.2 Monterey County Traffic Impact Fee
Monterey County is developing a traffic impact fee. It is expected to be adopted in late 2019. A list of improvements and the amount of the impact fee are not currently available. The fee is would not be applicable to the Project unless the fee program is adopted by Monterey County before the Project is approved. This fee is not able to be imposed at this time.

1.7.3 Salinas Traffic Improvement Program
The City of Salinas Traffic Improvement Program – 2010 Update, Wood Rodgers, March 2010, is the technical document used to establish the Salinas Traffic Fee Ordinance (TFO), which is the Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 6
primary funding source for transportation improvements to mitigate impacts of cumulative development as the City builds out its current General Plan. A traffic impact fee is assessed to new development within the City of Salinas to off-set its cumulative impacts on the circulation system that is under the City’s jurisdiction. As the project site is not located in the City of Salinas, the TFO fee would not be applicable to the Project.

Improvements with TFO funding included in the Traffic Improvement Program that are located in the vicinity of the Project site are listed below along with their individual Traffic Improvement Program project number. as follows.

1. TFO 26 – Western Bypass. This improvement will construct a new six-lane divided arterial between the Boronda Road / US 101 interchange and Blanco Road, mostly west of Boronda Road, Davis Road and the Boronda community.

2. TFO 27 – Alvin Drive Extension. This improvement will extend Alvin Drive westward over US 101 and to the Western Bypass as a four-lane arterial.

3. TFO 28A and 28B – Laurel / US 101 Widening (Davis to Adams) and Laurel Improvements (Adams to Main). These improvements will widen West Laurel Drive to six lanes between North Davis Road and Adams Street, and add left turn lanes in both directions between Adams Street and North Main Street.

4. TFO 29 – Rossi Street Extension. This improvement extends Rossi Street as a two-lane minor arterial west of North Davis Road to the Westside Bypass, thus creating a new access to the Boronda community near the project site.

5. TFO 31 – Main Street Widening (Expressway Type II). This improvement widens Main Street from a four to six-lane arterial between Casentini Street and Market Street.

6. TFO 73 – Davis Road / Blanco Road Intersection. This improvement widens the intersection to add the following lanes:
a. Second northbound Davis Road left turn lane;
b. Northbound Davis Road right turn lane;
c. Second southbound Davis Road through lane;
d. Eastbound Blanco Road right turn lane;
e. Second westbound Blanco Road left turn lane.

1.8 Unique Project Traffic Characteristics
The Quattrin H2A project will provide farmworker housing, which will assist in alleviating overcrowding in farmworker households. According to the “Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan for Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley,” California Institute for Rural Studies, June 2018, farmworker households have an occupancy rate of 7.00 persons per dwelling unit. These are scattered throughout the City of Salinas and surrounding communities. Farmworkers at these scattered locations must use private cars (many in carpools) to commute to and from work as well as shopping and personal trips.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 7
Residents of the Quattrin H2A housing project will be prohibited from having a car and will be transported to and from work and all other destinations by bus. Vehicle occupancy will increase from 2 to 3 persons per vehicle to over 20 persons per vehicle. There will be a corresponding reduction in traffic volumes on the street systems in Salinas and surrounding area. The project will thus have a positive city-wide impact on traffic congestion, which will likely more than offset any increase in traffic at nearby intersections. This is not possible to quantify but could easily be several times the increase anticipated in this study. This study does not provide any credit for this phenomenon, except for qualifying the determination of whether the project creates a significant impact at individual intersections.

The apartment alternative may have some similar traffic benefits. However, because the apartments will be available to the general public, they are analyzed as standard apartments. No credit is given in the analysis of determination of impact significance.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 8
2 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This chapter evaluates Existing traffic conditions and includes a description of the Project setting.

2.1 Existing Traffic Network
The Project site is located on the west side of North Davis Road at West Rossi Street in unincorporated Monterey County. The project site is located adjacent to the City of Salinas, which lies just east of West Davis Road from the project site.

The key roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project include US 101, Davis Road, Laurel Drive, Main Street, Market Street, Blanco Road, Alvin Drive, Rossi Street, Calle Del Adobe, Post Drive, Adams Street and El Rancho Way. These facilities are described below, in alphabetical order:

Adams Street is a two-lane collector street providing access to neighborhoods north of West Laurel Drive and east of US 101. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).

Alvin Drive is a four-lane minor arterial street in northern Salinas, providing access to adjacent residential neighborhoods and schools. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

Blanco Road is a two- to four-lane roadway in Monterey County and southern Salinas, connecting Marina and Salinas via Reservation Road. As such, it is a major commute corridor between the Monterey Peninsula and the Salinas Valley. The posted speed limit is 55 mph west of Davis Road and 50 mph east of Davis Road.

Calle Del Adobe provides the primary access to the Boronda area from North Davis Road. It is a two-lane east-west arterial that extends from the Davis Road/Laurel Drive intersection to Boronda Road. The posted speed limit is 45 mph between Boronda Road and Post Drive and 35 miles per hour between Post Drive and North Davis Road.

Davis Road extends along the easterly boundary of the Boronda area and generally represents the western limit line for the City of Salinas in the vicinity of the planning area. It extends from Reservation Road – near the unincorporated Toro Park neighborhood south of Salinas – to Boronda Road in northwestern Salinas. In the study area, Davis Road is a four-lane major arterial.

The posted speed limit in the study area is 35 mph north of Larkin Street, 45 miles per hour between Larkin Street and Blanco Road, and 55 mph south of Blanco Road.

El Rancho Way provides access to a residential neighborhood and a hotel. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

Laurel Drive is a major four-lane east-west arterial in the city of Salinas. Laurel Drive extends easterly from North Davis Road and has an interchange with US 101. It continues east through most of the northerly portion of the City of Salinas and is one of the major east-west arterials serving the city of Salinas. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

Main Street is a four- to six-lane north-south major arterial in southern, central and northern Salinas. It provides primary access to the Downtown from the north and south, as well as to northbound and southbound US 101 approximately one-half mile north of Rossi Street. In the study area, commercial and residential land uses line Main Street. Between US 101 and Market Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 9
Street, Main Street is also State Route 183. In the study area, the posted speed limit is 35 mph north of US 101 and 40 mph south of US 101.

Market Street is a four-lane east-west major arterial in the City of Salinas. the vicinity of the project site, connecting the Downtown with eastern and western Salinas. It provides direct access to commercial and industrial land uses along its frontage. West of Main Street, Market Street is also Sate Route 183, which continues west towards Castroville. The posted speed limit is 25 mph east of Main Street, 40 mph between Main Street and Davis Road, and 55 mph west of Davis Road.

Market Circle is a two-lane local street providing access to agricultural fields and rural residences. The presumed speed limit is 25 mph.

Rossi Street is a two-lane east-west minor arterial in western and central Salinas. It provides access to residential and commercial land uses. The posted speed limit is 40 mph west of North Main Street and 25 mph east of North Main Street.

Post Drive is a four-lane commercial collector street that runs in a quarter circle between North Davis Road and Calle Del Adobe. The presumed speed limit is 35 mph.

US 101 is a regional north-south facility through the city of Salinas. It is currently a four-lane roadway with interchanges in the city. The posted speed limit through the city is 65 mph. The nearest interchange access points to the project from US 101 are the Laurel Drive interchange and the partial Main Street interchange.

2.2 Existing Pedestrian Network
There are no sidewalks along the Project frontage of North Davis Road, although a sidewalk does exist on this side of North Davis Road just north of the project site. Sidewalks are present on the east frontage of North Davis Road. Both sidewalks are continuous to the north and east of the project site, including onto West Laurel Drive, Calle Del Adobe, Post Drive, Adam Street, West Rossi Street and West Market Street (State Route 183). These connections allow continuous travel for pedestrians to various commercial and industrial areas in western and downtown Salinas.

There are marked crosswalks present at all study intersections.

2.3 Existing Bicycle Network
There are four types of bicycle facilities defined by Caltrans. Each type is described below:

1. Bike path (Class I) – A separate right-of-way designed for the exclusive use of bicycle and pedestrian traffic with crossflow minimized.

2. Bike lane (Class II) – A striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway, typically including signs placed along the street segment.

3. Bike route (Class III) – Provides a shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.

Typically, these facilities are city streets with signage designating the segment for Bike Route without additional striping or facilities.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 10

4. Separated Bikeways (Class IV) – A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking.

A bicycle network map for Monterey County is included in Appendix B. This map is cited from Transportation Agency for Monterey County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Alta Planning + Design, December 2011 (“TAMC Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan”).

Bicycle facilities are provided along the following roadways in the study network:
• Bike Path (Class I):
a. Rossi-Rico Parkway: between North Davis Road (north of West Rossi Street) and West Rossi Street (east of Sansome Street)
• Bike Lane (Class II):
a. North Davis Road: between Blanco Road and Post Drive and between West Laurel Drive and Boronda Road (both directions)
b. West Rossi Street: between North Davis Road and Sherwood Drive (both directions) c. Blanco Road: between Reservation Road in Marina and Luther Way in Salinas (both directions)
d. North Main Street: between Alvin Drive and San Juan Grade Road e. Alvin Drive: between North Main Street and Kip Drive

2.4 Existing Transit Service
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) provides fixed-route bus service in Monterey County and Peninsula cities. Thirteen MST bus lines provides service to the study area:
• Line 20 (Salinas – Monterey). This line provides weekday and weekend service roughly every 30 minutes between roughly 5:00 AM – 3:00 AM the following morning. • Line 21 (Pebble Beach – Salinas Express). This line provides via just six runs per day (three in each direction) on weekdays and weekends.
• Line 23 (Salinas – King City). This line provides weekday and weekend service roughly every two hours between roughly 4:00 AM – 10:30 PM.
• Line 25 (CSUMB – Salinas). This line provides weekday and weekend service every 60 minutes between roughly 6:30 AM – 10:30 PM.
• Line 28 (Watsonville – Salinas via Castroville). This line provides weekday and weekend service every two hours between roughly 6:30 AM – 10:00 PM. • Line 29 (Watsonville – Salinas via Prunedale). This line provides weekday and weekend service every two hours 90 minutes between roughly 6:00 AM – 8:00 PM. • Line 42 (Westridge – Alisal). This line provides only weekend service every 90 minutes between roughly 9:00 AM – 9:00 PM.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 11
• Line 44 (Northridge – Salinas). This line provides daily service every 75 minutes between roughly 6:30 AM – 6:30 PM.
• Line 46 (Salinas – Natividad). This line provides only weekday service every 60-120 minutes between roughly 7:00 AM – 6:00 PM.
• Line 61 (Salinas – VA-DOD Clinic). This line provides weekday and weekend service every 60 minutes between roughly 6:00 AM – 10:30 PM.
• Line 72 (Presidio – North Salinas). This line provides weekday service via just four runs (two AM runs and two PM runs).
• Line 86 (King City – San Jose/SJ Airport). This line provides just four weekday runs (two in each direction) and eight weekend runs (four in each direction). • Line 95 (Williams Ranch – Northridge). This line provides weekday and weekend service every two hours between roughly 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM.

The nearest bus stops to the Project site (served by Line 72 only) are located on West Rossi Street east of North Davis Road (both directions). These stops located at approximately a sixminute walk from the project site. Bus stops are also located on North Davis Road south of Post Drive (served by Lines 44 and 72), which are more than a 13-minute walk away from the project site. Additional bus stops are located even further away from the project site.

2.5 Existing Conditions Traffic Circulation

2.5.1 Intersection Operations
Traffic volumes counts at the study intersections were collected during the AM (7:00 – 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 – 6:00) peak hours on Wednesday, May 22, 2019 (Intersections 1 through 6) and Tuesday, September 24, 2019 (Intersections 7 through 13). Traffic data was collected for cars, trucks, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians. From these counts, the AM and PM peak hour volumes were derived. Exhibit 3 depicts the peak turning movement volumes for the study intersections under Existing Conditions. Appendix C contains the traffic count data collected at these study intersections.

Appendix D contains a comparison of the May 2019 and September 2019 volumes at Intersection 4 – North Davis Road / Calle Del Adobe – West Laurel Drive, where data was collected during both count periods in order to verify if there were significant variation in the volumes from the two count periods. The exhibit shows that the September 2019 volumes at this intersection were between approximately 3% - 7% higher than those collected in May 2019. After balancing of the volumes along the adjacent West Laurel Drive intersections, the difference lowers to between approximately 1 – 2%. Both sets of percentages are below the typical day-to-day volume variation of 10% experienced at intersections. Therefore, it is concluded that the September 2019 volumes do not significantly differ from the May 2019 volumes.

Existing intersection lane configurations, traffic controls and levels of service at the study intersections are summarized in Exhibit 4A. Recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Exhibit 4B. The LOS calculation sheets for Existing conditions can be found in Appendix E.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 12
Most of the study intersections currently operate at or better than their respective level of service standards. However, the following three intersections operate below their respective standards under Existing conditions:

1. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe – Side-Street LOS F (AM).

2. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street – LOS D (AM and PM).

3. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183) – LOS D (PM)

2.5.2 Pedestrian Circulation
All study intersections nearest the project site have less than 10 pedestrians crossing each approach leg during the AM and PM peak hours. This low level of pedestrian activity also occurs at most of the study intersections. However, the three North Main Street intersections all have moderate to high levels of pedestrian crossings, averaging 66 AM and 57 PM pedestrian crossings between them.

2.5.3 Bicycle Circulation
There is little to no bicycle traffic at the study intersections. The highest amount of bicycle traffic was on Laurel Drive, which had one (AM) and two (PM) through bicyclists during the study peak periods.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 13
3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – AG HOUSING

3.1 Ag Housing Project Description
This section of the report focuses on Existing Plus Project conditions with Project Alternative 1 – agricultural employee housing.

Project Alternative 1 would build six residential buildings providing a total of 1,200 beds for 1,200 employees without dependents. All employees housed on site would be H2A Visa workers, i.e., seasonal employees who are US residents or reside permanently outside of the United States.

None of the employees would have their own vehicles. Instead, the employees would be bussed or carpooled to agricultural fields throughout Monterey County. All outbound bus/vanpool trips would occur between 2:00 – 5:00 AM and all inbound bus/vanpool trips would occur between 12:00 – 4:00 PM.

Both buses and vans will be used for employee bussing and vanpools. The buses would be stored offsite and driven to and from the site each day, while the vans would be stored onsite.

During weekday evenings and weekends, bus service into Salinas would be provided to the employees, as necessary, to transport employees to shopping, recreation and religious services.

The Project would only be occupied eight-and-a-half months of the year, from mid-March through November.

All project access would be via a westerly extension of West Rossi Street. This extension would only provide access to the project site and the adjacent agricultural fields; the West Rossi Street extension would not be connected to other roadways in Salinas or Boronda by the project.

3.2 Project Trip Generation – Ag Housing With Casa Boronda Data Trip generation estimates are typically based on rates from Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers in 2017 (Trip Generation Manual). However, this publication does not include trip rates for agricultural employee housing projects. Instead, as requested by Monterey County staff, the Project trip generation was derived using trip activity at an existing agricultural employee housing facility in Monterey County. Inbound and outbound traffic at the Casa Boronda agricultural housing facility on Madison Lane in the Boronda Area – just west of Salinas, was collected during the peak agricultural season on Tuesday, April 16, 2019 between 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM. The collected traffic data can be found in Appendix F. From this data, the AM and PM one-hour peak volumes were derived and converted into trips per employee using the roughly 600 employees that reside at that facility. The derived rates were used to estimate the AM and PM peak hour traffic generated by the proposed project.

The Casa Boronda project generates 4 AM peak hour trips and 43 PM peak hour trips. This is about two times the peak hour volume estimates of 2 AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips based on operator forecasts at the time of preparation of the Casa Boronda Agricultural Employee Housing Project Traffic Impact Analysis, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, July 3, 2017.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 14
A comparison of the estimated trip generation in the traffic study to the actual driveway counts is provided in Exhibit 5.

Much of the increase appears to be associated with a higher number of bus trips than originally anticipated. During observations of driveway traffic at Casa Boronda in May 2018, it was noted that the buses routinely carried 20 or fewer workers, which was less than half of their capacity.

This appeared to result in two times as many buses entered and exited the site as were originally forecasted. They were often followed by pickup trucks that often left with the buses after the workers disembarked. Foremen were assumed to arrive at Casa Boronda in their own vehicles and ride the bus to the fields with the workers. Apparently, many foremen drive separate vehicles to the fields. The traffic count was conducted on a single random day. Farm operations may vary from day to day, resulting in fewer buses being needed with a corresponding reduction in project trips. However, this is the only actual count data available. Previous traffic studies of farmworker housing projects were based on estimates by the project applicant.

Traffic volumes during off-peak hours, except for the early morning project peak hour when workers are leaving for the fields, are expected to the same as estimated in the Casa Boronda traffic study. This is because project occupants are generally not allowed to have personal vehicles. Typical residential trips such as shopping, school and recreation will not occur. The PM peak hour would then represent about 25% of the daily total.

Exhibit 5 summarizes the Project trip generation for the ag employee housing alternative. The Project is estimated to generate 346 weekday daily trips, with 8 trips (6 in, 2 out) during the AM peak hour and 86 trips (44 in, 42 out) during the PM peak hour. This is the trip activity used to evaluated potential project traffic impacts on the surrounding street system.

3.3 Unique Project Trip Generation Characteristics
The Project will only be occupied eight-and-a-half months out of the year, which is typical of most H2A housing projects in the Salinas area. Therefore, the project trip generation estimate in the prior paragraph will only occur when the project is open. The project would generate zero trips when closed. As a result, a seasonally adjusted trip generation is also included on Exhibit 5, to account for the project only being open approximately 71% of the year. The seasonally adjusted project trip generation would be 245 daily trips, with 6 trips (4 in, 2 out) during the AM peak hour and 61 trips (31 in, 30 out) during the PM peak hour. This is a factor that should be considered in the determination of project H2A traffic impact significance determination.

The use of the Casa Boronda traffic counts to project the project trip activity is a conservative estimate of the ag employee housing trips, as nearly all of the project bussing and vanpooling is anticipated to occur outside of the AM and PM street peak hours. Specifically, the project applicant anticipates that all morning bussing and vanpools will occur between 2:00 – 5:00 AM and between 12:00 – 4:00 PM. Restricting the hours of the bussing and vanpools outside of the peak hours is a form of Transportation Demand Management (TDM), and is described as such in this analysis. As noted on Exhibit 6, the project trip generation with the bussing and vanpools could constitute only 20% of the Casa Boronda traffic counts. The effects of the TDM measures on the project impacts for the ag employee housing project are addressed at each intersection Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 15
with deficient operations for all Ag Employee Housing analysis scenarios in this report.

Operations with the TDM measures are also indicated on Exhibit 4A.

Exhibit 6 depicts the trip distribution for the Project. The trip distribution was combined with the Project trip generation to derive the Project trip assignment depicted in Exhibit 7.

3.4 Project Access Improvements
The project’s vehicular access is on an extension of West Rossi Street west of North Davis Road.

This will require modifications to the lane configuration and existing traffic signal at the North Davis Road / West Rossi Street intersection. The analysis for Existing Plus Project, Background Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project all assume the following intersection modifications, all of which the project will be responsible for implementation:

1. Construct eastbound West Rossi Street as one left turn lane and one shared through-right turn lane.

2. Remove and reconstruct the existing median on West Rossi Street east of North Davis Road to remove one eastbound through lane leaving the intersection and add a new westbound through lane at the intersection. This improvement would also retain the existing dual westbound left turn lanes and single westbound right turn lane.

3. Add a northbound West Davis Road left turn lane.

4. Revise the existing signal infrastructure and signal phasing to reflect the above lane configuration modifications.

3.5 Existing Plus Project Condition Traffic Circulation – Ag Housing

3.5.1 Intersection Operations
The Project trip assignment for the ag employee housing alternative (Exhibit 7) was added to the existing traffic volumes in Exhibit 3 to create the Existing Plus Project – Ag Housing volumes depicted in Exhibit 8.

Existing Plus Project – Ag Housing condition intersection levels of service are summarized in Exhibit 4A. Recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Exhibit 4B. The LOS calculation sheets for Existing Plus Project – Ag Housing conditions can be found in Appendix G.

Most of the study intersections would operate at or better than their respective level of service standards under Existing Plus Project – Ag Housing conditions. However, the following three intersections would operate continue to operate below their standards:

1. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe – Side-Street LOS F (AM).

2. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street – LOS D (AM and PM).

3. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183) – LOS D (PM)
Below is a discussion of the recommended improvements at the study intersections operating under deficient operations that would be needed to improve operations to acceptable or better level of service.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 16

1. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe:

The side-street levels of service under AM conditions would be LOS F, compared to LOS F without the Project. The project would not add any traffic to this intersection. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would not result in a significant impact at this intersection. The project would not be responsible for any improvements at this intersection.

2. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street:

The level of service under AM and PM conditions would be LOS D, compared to LOS D without the Project. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection with the Casa Boronda-based trip generation.

However, with the TDM measures, the Project would only add zero trips (AM) and two trips (PM) to this intersection. This is a de minimis increase in traffic. This also does not account for the reduction in City-wide traffic resulting from the project as discussed in Section 1.8 of this report. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact at this intersection. The project would not be responsible for any improvements at this intersection.

3. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183):

The level of service under PM conditions would be LOS D, compared to LOS D without the Project. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection with the Casa Boronda-based trip generation.

However, with the TDM measures, the Project would only add one trip (AM) and one trip (PM) to this intersection. This is a de minimis increase in traffic. This also does not account for the reduction in City-wide traffic resulting from the project as discussed in Section 1.8 of this report. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact at this intersection. The project would not be responsible for any improvements at this intersection.

3.5.2 Pedestrian Circulation
The Project is anticipated to generate a small to moderate amount of pedestrian traffic. This would include pedestrian trips to the existing commercial areas on North Davis Road and to Downtown Salinas. There are existing and continuous sidewalks between the project site and these locations, thus providing adequate capacity for the additional pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to pedestrian circulation.

3.5.3 Bicycle Circulation
The Project is anticipated to generate a small amount of bicycle traffic. The existing bike lanes and shoulders on the study street network will be adequate to accommodate this additional bicycle traffic. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to bicycle circulation.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 17

3.5.4 Transit Circulation
The Project is anticipated to generate little or no transit demand. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to transit service.

3.6 Impact Fees
The Project would be subject to the TAMC Regional Development Impact Fee and the Salinas Traffic Improvement Program fee. The Project may also be subject to a Monterey County transportation impact fee, if one is adopted prior to approval of the study Project by Monterey County.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 18
4 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – APARTMENTS

4.1 Project Alternative Description
This section of the report focuses on Existing Plus Project conditions with Project Alternative 2 – standard apartments. Although the initial project is anticipated to be the agricultural employee housing, the project may be converted into standard apartments in the future, hence its inclusion within this analysis.

The Project Alternative 2 would build the same six residential buildings as Project Alternative

1.However, the buildings would be modified to provide up to 200 standard apartment units.

The trip generation estimate for Project Alternative 2 is based on rates from Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers in 2017 (Trip Generation Manual).

Project access for the apartment alternative would be the same as the H2A project alternative, with all project driveways located along a westerly extension of West Rossi Street. Under the Existing Plus Project scenario, this extension would only provide access to the project site and the adjacent agricultural fields; the West Rossi Street extension would not be connected to other roadways in Salinas or Boronda by the project.

4.2 Project Trip Generation – Apartments
Exhibit 5 provides the trip generation estimate for the apartment alternative. The Project is estimated to generate 1,464 weekday daily trips, with 92 trips (21 in, 71 out) during the AM peak hour and 112 trips (71 in, 41 out) during the PM peak hour. This is the trip activity used to evaluated potential project traffic impacts on the surrounding street system.

4.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment – Apartments Exhibit 9 depicts the trip distribution for the Project. The trip distribution was combined with the Project trip generation to derive the Project trip assignment depicted in Exhibit 10.

4.4 Project Access Improvements
As with the project’s ag employee housing alternative, vehicular access for the apartments alternative would be via an extension of West Rossi Street west of North Davis Road. This will require modifications to the lane configuration and existing traffic signal at the North Davis Road / West Rossi Street intersection. The analysis for Existing Plus Project, Background Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project with the apartment alternative all assume the same North Davis Road / West Rossi Street intersection modifications as previously described under the ag employee housing alternative, all of which the project will be responsible for implementation.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 19

4.5 Existing Plus Project Condition Traffic Circulation – Apartments

4.5.1 Intersection Operations
The Project trip assignment for the apartments (Exhibit 10) was added to the existing traffic volumes in Exhibit 3 to estimate the Existing Plus Project – Apartment volumes depicted in Exhibit 11.

Existing Plus Project – Apartment condition intersection levels of service are summarized in Exhibit 4A. Recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Exhibit 4B. The LOS calculation sheets for Existing Plus Project – Apartment conditions can be found in Appendix H.

Most of the study intersections would operate at or better than their respective level of service standards under Existing Plus Project – Apartment conditions. However, the following three intersections would continue to operate below their standards:

1. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe – Side-Street LOS F (AM).

2. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street – LOS D (AM and PM).

1. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe:

2. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street:

The level of service under AM and PM conditions would be LOS D, compared to LOS D without the Project. It would result in an increase of 0.9 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 0.4 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. For intersections already operating at LOS D, E, or F pre-Project, a significant impact would occur if the project would cause overall delay to increase by at least 0.1 seconds. Per the significance criteria in Section

1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection. However, if this intersection was under City of Salinas jurisdiction, the project would not have an insignificant impact. This is because the City of Salinas has a standard of LOS D. • Recommendation: Implement the following:

1. Add a third northbound and third southbound through lane on North Main Street.

This improvement is Salinas TFO Improvement 31.
• Operations after Implementation of Improvement: LOS C (AM and PM).

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 20
• Responsibility for Improvement: Payment of Salinas TFO would constitute the project’s responsibility towards improvement.

3. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183):

The level of service under PM conditions would be LOS D, compared to LOS D without the Project. It would result in an increase of 0.2 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 0.9 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. For intersections already operating at LOS D, E, or F pre-Project, a significant impact would occur if the project would cause overall delay to increase by at least 0.1 seconds. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection. However, if this intersection was under City of Salinas jurisdiction, the project would not have an insignificant impact.

This is because the City of Salinas has a standard of LOS D. • Recommendation: Implement the following:

1. Add an eastbound right turn lane on West Market Street. • Operations after Implementation of Improvement: LOS B (AM) and LOS C (PM). • Responsibility for Improvement: The study project should implement this improvement.

4.5.2 Pedestrian Circulation
The Project is anticipated to generate a small to moderate amount of pedestrian traffic. This would include pedestrian trips to the existing Boronda Meadows Elementary School, commercial areas on North Davis Road and to Downtown Salinas. There are existing and continuous sidewalks between the project site and these locations, thus providing adequate capacity for the additional pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to pedestrian circulation.

4.5.3 Bicycle Circulation
The Project is anticipated to generate a small amount of bicycle traffic. The existing bike lanes and shoulders on the study street network will be adequate to accommodate this additional bicycle traffic. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to bicycle circulation.

4.5.4 Transit Circulation
The Project is anticipated to generate little or no transit demand. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to transit service.

4.6 Impact Fees
The Project would be subject to the TAMC Regional Development Impact Fee and the Salinas Traffic Improvement Program fee. The Project may also be subject to a Monterey County transportation impact fee, if one is adopted prior to approval of the study Project by Monterey County.

Note that the project’s fees applicable to the apartments would be different compared to the fees applicable for the ag employee housing.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 21
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 22
5 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
This section describes Background traffic conditions. It accounts for traffic growth on the study network over a five-year period but does not include trips from the Project.

5.1 Derivation of Background Condition Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic generated by projects approved for development but not yet constructed or occupied was estimated based on a growth rate of 2% per year for five years (i.e., 10% increase in traffic). This is consistent with a review of traffic volumes at the study intersections over the past five years, referenced from past traffic studies1 and data collected for this analysis. This review found traffic volume growth of approximately 2% per year at the study intersections which is summarized in Appendix I.

Exhibit 12 contains the Background AM and PM traffic volumes at the study intersections.

5.2 Background Traffic Conditions

5.2.1 Intersection Operations
Background intersection levels of service are summarized in Exhibit 4A. Recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Exhibit 4B. The LOS calculation sheets for Background traffic conditions can be found in Appendix J.

Most of the study intersections would operate at or better than their respective level of service standards under Background conditions. However, the following four intersections will operate below their respective standards:

1. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe – Side-Street LOS F (AM).

2. Intersection 6 – North Davis Road / Post Drive – Commercial Driveway – LOS E (AM and PM)

3. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street – LOS E (AM) and LOS D (PM).

4. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183) – LOS D (PM)

5.2.2 Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian demand is not anticipated to increase significantly under Background conditions.

There are no planned pedestrian infrastructure improvements in the study area under Background conditions.
1 Traffic Studies:

1. Casa Boronda Agricultural Employee Housing Project, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, July 3, 2017.

Existing volumes from 2014.

2. The Draft West Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, June 2018.

Existing volumes from 2016.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 23

5.2.3 Bicycle Circulation
Bicycle traffic is not anticipated to increase significantly under Background conditions. There are no planned bicycle infrastructure improvements in the study area under Background conditions.

5.2.4 Transit Circulation
There are no planned transit circulation improvements in the study area under Background conditions.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 24
6 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – AG

HOUSING
This section describes the analysis results for Background Plus Project – Ag Housing traffic conditions, which combines Project Alternative 1 traffic with the Background volumes.

6.1 Derivation of Background Plus Project – Ag Housing Condition Traffic Volumes The Project trip assignment for the ag employee housing (Exhibit 7) was combined with the Background volumes (Exhibit 12) to estimate the Background Plus Project – Ag Housing intersection volumes depicted in Exhibit 13.

6.2 Background Plus Project Traffic Conditions – Ag Housing

6.2.1 Intersection Operations
Background Plus Project – Ag Housing intersection levels of service are summarized in Exhibit 4A. Recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Exhibit 4B. The LOS calculation sheets for Background Plus Project – Ag Housing traffic conditions can be found in Appendix K.

Most of the study intersections would operate at or better than their respective level of service standards under Background Plus Project – Ag Housing conditions. However, the following five intersections would operate below their standards:

1. Intersection 4 – North Davis Road / Calle Del Adobe – West Laurel Drive – LOS E (PM)

2. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe – Side-Street LOS F (AM).

3. Intersection 6 – North Davis Road / Post Drive – Commercial Driveway – LOS E (AM and PM)

4. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street – LOS E (AM and PM).

5. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183) – LOS D (PM)
Below is a discussion of the recommended improvements at the study intersections operating under deficient operations that would be needed to improve operations to acceptable or better level of service.

1. Intersection 4 – North Davis Road / Calle Del Adobe – West Laurel Drive:

No change would occur in the Background LOS C at this intersection. However, the level of service under PM conditions would be LOS E, compared to LOS D without the Project due to an increase in delay of 1.7 seconds. LOS E is an unacceptable level of service.

Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection with the Casa Boronda-based trip generation. However, with the addition of the Project trips and the TDM measures described in Section 3.3, the intersection operations would remain at LOS D. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact at this intersection. The project would not be responsible for any improvements at this intersection.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 25

2. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe:

3. Intersection 6 – North Davis Road / Post Drive – Commercial Driveway:

The level of service under AM and PM conditions would be LOS E, compared to LOS E without the Project. The H2A Project would result in an increase of 0.1 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 1.7 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. For intersections already operating at LOS D, E, or F pre-Project, a significant impact would occur if the project would cause overall delay to increase by at least 0.1 seconds. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection with the Casa Boronda-based trip generation. However, with the TDM measures, the Project would only add zero trips (AM) and four trips (PM) to this intersection. This is a de minimis increase in traffic. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact at this intersection. The project would not be responsible for any improvements at this intersection.

4. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street:

The level of service under AM and PM conditions would be LOS E, compared to LOS E (AM) and LOS D (PM) without the Project. The H2A Project would result in an increase of 0.1 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 0.3 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. For intersections already operating at LOS D, E, or F pre-Project, a significant impact would occur if the project would cause overall delay to increase by at least 0.1 seconds. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection with the Casa Boronda-based trip generation.

However, with the TDM measures, the Project would only add zero trips (AM) and two trips (PM) to this intersection. This is a de minimis increase in traffic. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact at this intersection. The project would not be responsible for any improvements at this intersection.

5. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183):

The level of service under PM conditions would be LOS D, compared to LOS D without the Project. The level of service under PM conditions would be LOS D, compared to LOS D without the Project. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection with the Casa Boronda-based trip generation. However, with the TDM measures, the Project would only add one trip (AM) and one trip (PM) to this intersection. This is a de minimis increase in traffic. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact at this intersection. The project would not be responsible for any improvements at this intersection. Also, if this intersection was Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 26
under City of Salinas jurisdiction, the project would not have an insignificant impact. This is because the City of Salinas has a standard of LOS D.

6.2.2 Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian demand is not anticipated to increase significantly under Background Plus Project conditions as compared to Background conditions. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to pedestrian circulation under Background Plus Project conditions.

6.2.3 Bicycle Circulation
Bicycle demand is not anticipated to increase significantly under Background Plus Project conditions as compared to Background conditions. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to bicycle circulation under Background Plus Project conditions.

6.2.4 Transit Circulation
Transit demand from the Project is not anticipated to increase significantly over Existing Plus Project conditions, due to the lack of bus stops near the Project site. As such, the Project would not represent a significant impact to transit circulation under Background Plus Project conditions.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 27
7 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS –

APARTMENTS
This section describes the analysis results for Background Plus Project – Apartments traffic conditions, which combines Project Alternative 2 traffic with the Background volumes.

7.1 Derivation of Background Plus Project Condition Traffic Volumes – Apartments The Project trip assignment for the apartments (Exhibit 10) was combined with the Background volumes (Exhibit 12) to estimate the Background Plus Project – Apartments intersection volumes depicted in Exhibit 11.

7.2 Background Plus Project Traffic Conditions – Apartments

7.2.1 Intersection Operations
Background Plus Project – Apartments intersection levels of service are summarized in Exhibit 4A. Recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Exhibit 4B. The LOS calculation sheets for Background Plus Project – Apartments traffic conditions can be found in Appendix L.

Most of the study intersections would operate at or better than their respective level of service standards under Background Plus Project – Apartments conditions. However, the following five intersections would operate below their standards:

1. Intersection 4 – North Davis Road / Calle Del Adobe – West Laurel Drive – LOS E (PM)

2. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe – Side-Street LOS F (AM).

3. Intersection 6 – North Davis Road / Post Drive – Commercial Driveway – LOS E (AM and PM)

4. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street – LOS E (AM and PM).

1. Intersection 4 – North Davis Road / Calle Del Adobe – West Laurel Drive:

The level of service under PM conditions would be LOS E, compared to LOS D without the Project due to an increase in delay of 3.8 seconds. LOS E is an unacceptable level of service. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection.
• Recommendation: Implement either of the following groups of improvements:

1. Add a third westbound left turn lane on West Laurel Drive and a third southbound receiving lane on North Davis Road leaving the intersection; OR Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 28

2. Implement the following improvements, both of which are incorporated into the recommendations at this intersection under Cumulative Plus Project – Apartments conditions:
a. Implement the Western Bypass. This roadway, proposed by the Salinas TFO, would be a new arterial roadway parallel to and west of North Davis Road. As shown under Cumulative Plus Project – Apartment conditions, the Western Bypass would divert traffic off of West Davis Road, reducing the total traffic through this intersection. This improvement is Salinas TFO Improvement 26. b. Optimize the signal timing at the North Davis Road / Calle Del Adobe – West Laurel Drive intersection.
• Operations after Implementation of Improvement options: LOS C (AM) and LOS D (PM) for both improvement options.
• Responsibility for Improvement: The project would be responsible for implementation of Improvement Option 1. Payment of Salinas TFO would constitute project’s responsibility towards Improvement Option 2.

2. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe:

3. Intersection 6 – North Davis Road / Post Drive – Commercial Driveway:

The level of service under AM and PM conditions would be LOS E, compared to LOS E without the Project. The Project would result in an increase in delay of 0.7 seconds in the AM peak hour and 3.9 seconds in the PM peak hour. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection. • Recommendation: Implement either of the following groups of improvements:

1. Implement the following:
a. Restripe eastbound Post Drive as one left lane, one through lane and one right turn lane.
b. Convert the east/west left turn signal phasing on Post Drive – Commercial Driveway to permitted phasing (as opposed to the current split phasing); OR

2. Implement the Western Bypass. This roadway, proposed by the Salinas TFO, would be a new arterial roadway parallel to and west of North Davis Road. As shown under Cumulative Plus Project – Apartment conditions, the Western Bypass would divert traffic away from West Davis Road, reducing the total traffic through this intersection. This improvement is Salinas TFO Improvement 26. • Operations after Implementation of Improvement options: LOS C (AM and PM) for Improvement Option 1 or LOS D (AM and PM) for Improvement Option 2.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 29
• Responsibility for Improvement: The project would be responsible for implementation of Improvement Option 1. Payment of Salinas TFO would constitute the project’s responsibility towards Improvement Option 2.

4. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street:

The level of service under AM and PM conditions would be LOS E, compared to LOS E (AM) and LOS D (PM) without the Project. The Project would result in an increase in delay of 1.2 seconds in the AM peak hour and 0.5 seconds in the PM peak hour. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection.
• Recommendation: Implement the following:

1. Add a third northbound and third southbound through lane on North Main Street.

This improvement is Salinas TFO Improvement 31. This is the same improvement as previously recommended under Existing Plus Project – Apartment conditions. • Operations after Implementation of Improvement: LOS D (AM and PM). • Responsibility for Improvement: Payment of Salinas TFO would constitute the project’s responsibility towards improvement.

5. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183):

The level of service under PM conditions would be LOS D, compared to LOS D without the Project. It would result in an increase of 0.1 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 1.4 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. For intersections already operating at LOS D, E, or F pre-Project, a significant impact would occur if the project would cause overall delay to increase by at least 0.1 seconds. Per the significance criteria in Section 1.6, the Project would result in a significant impact at this intersection. However, if this intersection was under City of Salinas jurisdiction, the project would not have an insignificant impact.

This is because the City of Salinas has a standard of LOS D. • Recommendation: Implement the following:

1. Add an eastbound right turn lane on West Market Street. This is the same improvement as previously recommended under Existing Plus Project – Apartment conditions.
• Operations after Implementation of Improvement: LOS B (AM) and LOS C (PM). • Responsibility for Improvement: The study project should implement this improvement.

7.2.2 Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian demand is not anticipated to increase significantly under Background Plus Project conditions as compared to Background conditions. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to pedestrian circulation under Background Plus Project conditions.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 30

7.2.3 Bicycle Circulation
Bicycle demand is not anticipated to increase significantly under Background Plus Project conditions as compared to Background conditions. Therefore, the Project would not represent a significant impact to bicycle circulation under Background Plus Project conditions.

7.2.4 Transit Circulation
Transit demand from the Project is not anticipated to increase significantly over Existing Plus Project conditions, due to the lack of bus stops near the Project site. As such, the Project would not represent a significant impact to transit circulation under Background Plus Project conditions.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 31

8 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section describes the analysis results under Cumulative Without Project traffic conditions, which forecasts traffic conditions at buildout of the City of Salinas and Monterey County General Plans. This scenario does not include trips from the study Project. This condition represents conditions in approximately the Year 2045.

8.1 Derivation of Cumulative Without Project Condition Volumes Traffic volumes under Cumulative Without Project conditions were estimated using volume forecasts from six prior traffic studies that analyzed the study network:

1. Casa Boronda Agricultural Employee Housing Project, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, July 3, 2017.

2. The Draft West Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, June 2018.

3. Rodeo Property Traffic Impact Analysis, Mott MacDonald, June 12, 2019.

4. El Rancho Toro Agricultural Employee Housing Project Traffic Impact Analysis, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, June 6, 2019.

5. City of Salinas General Plan Circulation Element and Environmental Impact Report Traffic Study, Higgins Associates, June 11, 2002.

6. 2007 Monterey County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, ICF Jones & Stokes, September 2008.

8.2 Network Modifications under Cumulative Conditions
Cumulative Without Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions include multiple street network modifications near the study network. These modifications will divert traffic away from the study network. All improvements are in the City of Salinas Traffic Fee Ordinance.

The network modifications are:

2. TFO 27 – Alvin Drive Extension. This improvement will extend Alvin Drive westward over US 101 and to the Western Bypass as a four-lane arterial.

3. TFO 29 – Rossi Street Extension. This improvement extends Rossi Street as a two-lane minor arterial west of North Davis Road to the Westside Bypass, thus creating a new access to the Boronda community near the project site.

Please see Section 1.7.3 for a more detailed description of these improvements.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 32
The analyzed traffic volumes for Cumulative Without Project and Cumulative Plus Project reflect the traffic diversions that would occur due to these network modifications.

With regards to the Western Bypass, its alignment between Blanco Road and West Market Street (State Route 183) is not defined. City staff has confirmed that there are no formal designs of the roadway south of West Market Street (State Route 183) beyond the conceptual alignment identified in the Salinas TFO, which indicates that it will run parallel to South Davis Road at approximately 800 feet to the west. This would mean that the Western Bypass would have an interchange or grade separation with SR 183 and an intersection with Blanco Road between South Davis Road and Hitchcock Road. Therefore, the traffic forecasts at the South Davis Road / Blanco Road intersection are taken from the traffic study for the West Area Specific Plan, whose cumulative traffic forecasts are consistent with the TFO alignment of the Western Bypass.

In addition, the improvements at the North Davis Road / West Rossi Street intersection previously discussed in Section 3.3 – as associated with the project’s westward extension of West Rossi Street – are also assumed in place under Cumulative Without Project conditions. This is due to the Rossi Street Extension (TFO 29).

8.3 Cumulative Without Project Traffic Conditions

8.3.1 Intersection Operations
Cumulative Without Project traffic volumes are depicted on Exhibit 15. Cumulative Without Project intersection levels of service are summarized in Exhibit 4A. Recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Exhibit 4B. The LOS calculation sheets for Cumulative Without Project traffic conditions can be found in Appendix M.

Some of the study intersections will operate at or better than their respective level of service standards. However, the following eight intersections operate below their respective standards under Cumulative Without Project conditions:

1. Intersection 5 – Post Drive – El Rancho Way / Calle Del Adobe – Side-Street LOS F (PM).

2. Intersection 7 – North Davis Road / West Rossi Street – LOS F (PM).

3. Intersection 8 – North Main Street (State Route 183) / Rossi Street – LOS E (AM and PM).

4. Intersection 9 – Davis Road Southbound Ramps – Market Circle / West Market Street (State Route 183) – LOS D (PM).

5. Intersection 10 – Davis Road Northbound Ramps – Private Driveway / West Market Street (State Route 183) – LOS E (PM).

6. Intersection 11 – Davis Road / Blanco Road – LOS F (AM and PM).

7. Intersection 12 – North Main Street / Alvin Drive – LOS E (PM).

8. Intersection 13 – North Main Street / Laurel Drive – LOS F (PM).

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 33

8.3.2 Pedestrian Circulation
There are no planned pedestrian improvements in the study area under Cumulative Without Project conditions other than to construct sidewalks along future streets where appropriate and to close gaps in existing sidewalks.

8.3.3 Bicycle Circulation
The TAMC bike and ped plan proposes the following future bicycle improvements in the study area.
• Bike Lane (Class II):
a. Davis Road: between West Laurel Drive and Post Street and between Blanco Road and Reservation Road (both directions)
b. Calle Del Adobe: between North Davis Road and Boronda Road (both directions) c. West Rossi Street: between North Davis Road and Boronda Road (both directions) d. Alvin Drive: between North Main Street and North Davis Road and between Kip Drive and Natividad Road (both directions)
• Bike Path (Class III):
a. West Laurel Drive: between North Davis Road and Adams Street b. Adams Street: between West Laurel Drive and Tulane Street

8.3.4 Transit Circulation
There are no anticipated transit improvements in the study area.

Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Quattrin Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis
Quattrin Report-Draft Page 34
9 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS – AG

HOUSING
This section describes the analysis results under Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions, which combines the Cumulative Without Project volumes with the Project Alternative 1 trips.

9.1 Derivation of Cumulative Plus Project Condition Traffic Volumes – Ag Housing The Project trip assignment for the ag employee housing (Exhibit 7) was added to the Cumulative Without Project volumes (Exhibit 15) to estimate Cumulative Plus Project – Ag Housing traffic volumes, which are depicted on Exhibit 16.

Note: The Rossi Street Extension is not anticipated to modify the project trip assignment.

9.2 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions – Ag Housing

9.2.1 Intersection Operations
Cumulative Plus Project – Ag Housing intersection levels of service are summarized in Exhibit 4A. Recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Exhibit 4B. The LOS calculation sheets for Cumulative Plus Project – Ag Housing traffic conditions can be found in Appendix N.

Most of the study intersections would operate at or better than their respective level of service standards under Cumulative Plus Project – Ag Housing conditions. However, the following eight intersections would operate below their standards. These are the same intersections that will be deficient without the Project.