SP20-0002_Staff Report_Attach D- EIR Appx K-Transportation-Analysis

Hallmark‐Barham Specific Plan EIR
Technical Appendices

Appendix K
Transportation Analysis

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS &

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

HALLMARK BARHAM SPECIFIC PLAN
San Marcos, California
May 10, 2021
LLG Ref. 3-20-3293
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:

Amelia Giacalone John Boarman, P.E
Transportation Planner III Principal

LI NS COTT
LAW &

GREENSPAN
engineers
Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92111
858.300.8800 T
858.300.8810 F
www.llgengineers.com

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Access and Circulation ....................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Project Construction............................................................................................................ 2

3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Existing Street Network ...................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 7

4.0 Analysis Approach and Methodology .................................................................................... 11

4.1 CEQA Analysis Methodology .......................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 Project Screening .................................................................................................. 13

4.1.2 VMT Estimating Tools ......................................................................................... 13

4.2 Local Transportation Analysis Methodology ................................................................... 14

4.2.1 Level of Service .................................................................................................... 14

4.2.2 Intersections .......................................................................................................... 15

4.2.3 Street Segments ..................................................................................................... 15

5.0 Significance Thresholds and Level of Service Standards ..................................................... 16

5.1 VMT Significant Impact Thresholds ................................................................................ 16

5.2 Level of Service Standards ............................................................................................... 16

6.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis ................................................................................ 17

6.1 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................. 17

6.2 VMT Analysis ................................................................................................................... 17

6.3 VMT Impacts Summary & Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 18

7.0 Local Transportation Analysis of Existing Conditions ........................................................ 20

7.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................... 20

7.2 Daily Street Segment Levels of Service ........................................................................... 20

8.0 Trip Generation, Distribution, & Assignment ...................................................................... 23

8.1 Project Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 23

8.2 Construction Trip Generation ........................................................................................... 23

8.3 Trip Distribution/Assignment ........................................................................................... 23

9.0 Local Transportation Analysis of Near-Term (Year 2025) Conditions .............................. 26

9.1 Near-Term Year 2025 Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 26

9.2 Near-Term (Year 2025) Without Project .......................................................................... 26

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
ii

9.2.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 26

9.2.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 26

9.3 Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project ..................................................................................... 26

9.3.1 Intersections Analysis ........................................................................................... 26

9.3.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 27

10.0 Local Transportation Analysis of Horizon Year (Year 2050) Conditions .......................... 32

10.1 Year 2050 Network Conditions ........................................................................................ 32

10.2 Year 2050 Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 33

10.3 Year 2050 Without Project Analysis ................................................................................ 33

10.3.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 33

10.3.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 33

10.4 Year 2050 With Project Analysis ..................................................................................... 33

10.4.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 33

10.4.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 34

11.0 Site Access and Circulation Review ....................................................................................... 40

11.1 Site Access ........................................................................................................................ 40

11.2 Parking .............................................................................................................................. 40

11.3 Driveway Sight Distance Assessment .............................................................................. 40

11.4 Fire Truck Turning Template Assessment ........................................................................ 41

11.5 Vehicle Queuing ............................................................................................................... 41

12.0 Active Transportation Review ................................................................................................ 43

12.1 Pedestrian Conditions ....................................................................................................... 43

12.2 Transit Conditions ............................................................................................................. 43

12.3 Bicycle Conditions ............................................................................................................ 44

13.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 45

13.1 VMT Analysis ................................................................................................................... 45

13.2 Local Mobility Analysis ................................................................................................... 45

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
iii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Intersection and Segment Manual Count Sheets
B. City of San Marcos Roadway Classification Table
C. SANDAG Series 13 Year 2020 Travel Demand Model Results D. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets
E. Near-Term (Year 2025) without Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets F. Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets G. Year 2050 without Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets H. Year 2050 + Project Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets I. VMT Mitigation Measure Summary & Calculations
J. Driveway Sight Visibility Triangle
K. Firetruck Turning Templates

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
iv

LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—F IGURE # F OLLOWING PAGE
Figure 2–1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2–2 Project Area Map ............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2–3 Project Site Plan .............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3–1 Existing Conditions Diagram .......................................................................................... 9 Figure 3–2 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 8–1 Project Traffic Distribution ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 8–2 Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 9–1 Near-Term (Year 2025) without Project Traffic Volumes ........................................... 30 Figure 9–2 Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................... 31 Figure 10–1 Year 2050 Network Conditions................................................................................. 37 Figure 10-2 Year 2050 Without Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 38 Figure 10–3 Year 2050 + Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 39

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
v

LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—T ABLE # P AGE
Table 3–1 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 5–1 VMT Impact Thresholds by Land Use Type ..................................................................... 16 Table 6–1 Project VMT Findings ....................................................................................................... 17 Table 7–1 Existing Intersection Operations ........................................................................................ 21 Table 7–2 Existing Street Segment Operations .................................................................................. 22 Table 8–1 Project Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 23 Table 9–1 Near-Term (Year 2025) Intersection Operations ............................................................... 28 Table 9–2 Near-Term (Year 2025) Street Segment Operations ......................................................... 29 Table 10–1 Year 2050 Intersection Operations .................................................................................. 35 Table 10–2 Year 2050 Street Segment Operations ............................................................................. 36 Table 11-1 Vehicular Queue Summary .............................................................................................. 42 Table 12–1 Bicycle Mobility .............................................................................................................. 44 Table 13–1 Trip Generation Comparison ........................................................................................... 46

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS &

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

HALLMARK BARHAM SPECIFIC PLAN
San Marcos, California
May 10, 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared the fol lowing Transportation Impact Analysis & Local Transportation Analysis to determine and evalu ate the potential impacts and effects to the local roadway system due to the proposed Hallamark Barham Specifc Plan Project. The Project site is located at 943 E. Barham Drive, west of La More e Road in the Barham/Discovery Community of the City of San Marcos.

The following items are included in this traffic study:
 Project Description
 Existing Conditions Discussion
 Analysis Approach and Methodology
 Significance Thresholds and Level of Service Standards  Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
 Local Transportation Analysis of Existing Conditions
 Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
 Local Transportation Analysis of Near-Term (Year 2025) Conditions  Local Transportation Analysis of Horizon Year (Year 2050) Conditions  Site Access and Circulation Review
 Active Transportation Review
 Conclusions

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approximate 10.56-acre site is located at 943 E. Barham Dri ve, west of La Moree Road in the Barham/Discovery Community of th e City of San Marcos. The asses sor parcel number (APN) is 228-310-0100. The Project site is currently zoned MU (Mixed Use)-3, which is intended to support a job-based mixed-use area combining a variety of commercial and office uses.

The Project requires a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, R ezone, Multi-Family Site Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map, Conditional Use Pe rmit and a Gradi ng Variance. If approved, these entitlements woul d allow for 151 multi-family r esidential units, which will result in reduced density as compared to the current MU-3 zoning.

The Specific Plan is a comprehensive planning document that establishes development guidelines for the project site. The document will serve as the primary land u se, policy, and regulatory document for the project by providing a de velopment planning review proc ess, as authorized by California Government Code Section 65450, in conjunction with the City of San Marcos Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 20.535.

2.1 Access and Circulation
A c c e s s t o t h e p r o j e c t s i t e w i l l b e v i a t w o d r i v e w a y s o n E . B a r ham Drive which will provide an internal loop through the project site and provide access to al l e y s . B o t h d r i v e w a y s w i l l b e unsignalized and will offer full access. A secondary emergency- only access is provided through the western boundary of the project site to connect to an existing emergency access driveway on the adjacent property which connects to Saddleback Way and then to E. Barham Drive. This access point is for emergency vehicles only and bollards would be put in place. Driveways and alleys within the project site will be private. In addition, the proje ct provides and accessible path of travel through the site and to each residence via pedestrian pathways.

2.2 Project Construction
Grading of the Project site will consist of approximately 36,394 cubic yards (CY) of cut material and 91,526 CY of fill material requir ing an import of approximately 46,341 CY of material. Assuming Project approvals in late 2021, th e project is expected to star t construction in late 2022 with an occupancy of Spring 2025.

Figure 2–1 shows the Project vicinity. Figure 2–2 shows a more detailed Project area map. Figure 2–3 depicts the conceptual site plan.

S.D.

COUNTY

CARLSBAD

CORONADO

ENCINITAS
SOLANA
BEACH

CHULA VISTA

OCEANSIDE
VISTA

SAN MARCOS
POWAY
SANTEE

EL CAJON

LA MESA
LEMON
GROVE

NATIONAL
CITY

SAN DIEGO
S.D. COUNTYS.D. COUNTY

ESCONDIDO
Time: 10:02 AM
Date: 11/15/2020
N:\3293\Figures
Vicinity Map
Figure 2-1
[
Barham Residential
§¨8
§¨5 §¨805
§¨5
§¨15
§¨5
§¨8
"Ã54
"Ã125
"Ã94
"Ã52
"Ã163
"Ã56
"Ã78
"Ã67
§¨15
Project Site
Project Area Map
Figure 2-2
Barham Residential
N:\3293\Figures
Date: 11/16/20
Project
Site
Mission Hills ei
High School T.

RIC AND VI LAS
Lake
Moree Park
■
.
.

IH·Hilii
Rock Springs Rd
Pal1 omar Medical m
Center Escondido T
LUUN It( I LLUD
f Havasu Waterc raft Inc
a
Site Plan
Figure 2-3N:\3293\Figures
Date: 11/16/20
a
■
. .

IH·Hilii
Barham Residential

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
6 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Effective evaluation of the traffic impacts and effects associa ted with the proposed Project requires an understanding of the existing transportation system within t he study area. Figure 3–1 shows an existing conditions diagram, incl uding intersection control and lane configurations. The study area includes the following intersections and street segments based on guidance provided in the City of San Marcos’ Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 2020), t he anticipated distribution of the Project traffic, and areas of potential effect:

Intersection

1. E. Barham Dr / SR-78 Off Ramp

2. Rancheros Dr / SR-78 WB Ramp

3. Rancheros Dr / Woodland Pkwy

4. E. Barham Dr / Woodland Pkwy

5. E. Barham Dr / Project Driveway 1 (West)

6. E. Barham Dr / Project Driveway 2 (East)

7. E. Barham Dr / La Moore Road
Segments
E. Barham Drive
 Woodland Parkway to Project Driveway (West)
 Project Driveway (W) to Project Driveway (East)
 Project Driveway (East) to La Moree Road
 East of La Moree Road

3.1 Existing Street Network
The principal roadways in the project study are described brief ly below. Roadway classification was determined from a review of the City of San Marcos Mobility Element and information gathered from field observations. Figure 3–1 illustrates the existing circulation conditions.

State Route 78 (SR-78) is an east/west freeway facility connecting Oceanside, Vista, S an Marcos, and Escondido. SR-78 is generally built with three general purp ose lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit in the study area is 65 MPH. In the study area, local access is provided as follows:
 Westbound SR-78
o Signalized on/off-ramps at the Nordahl Road diamond interchange o Unsignalized on/off ramps from/to Rancheros Drive
 Eastbound SR-78
o Signalized on/off-ramps at the Nordahl Road diamond interchange o Signalized off-ramp to Barham Drive (west of Woodland Parkway) o Signalized on-ramp from Barham Drive (east of Woodland Parkway)

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
7 Rancheros Drive is an east/west facility generally north and east of the proje ct site. It is identified as an unclassified Major Road on the City of San Marcos Mobility Element. In the project study area Rancheros Drive provides access to SR-78 and is currently built as a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit that ranges from 30-35 mph. The dista nce between the SR-78 westbound ramps and Woodland Parkway is approximately 400 feet. On-street parking is generally not allowed west of Woodland Parkway, but i s provided intermittently on por tions of Rancheros Drive east of Woodland Parkway.

Woodland Parkway is a north-south facility west of the project site. It is ident ified as a 4-lane roadway on the City of San Marcos Mobility Element. In the project study area, Woodland Parkway connects Barham Drive to Rancheros Drive, which provides access to/from westbound SR-78.

Between Barham Drive and Rancheros Drive, Woodland Parkway is a pproximately 400 feet in length, and provides 3 lanes (including turn lanes) in 32 feet of width. The posted speed limit in the study area is 40 mph, and on-street parking is not allowed west.

E. Barham Drive is an east/west facility that is classified within the study ar ea on the City of San Marcos Mobility Element as a 4-Lane Arterial w/ Class II or III bicycle facilities fro m Woodland Parkway east to the San Marcos city limits with Escondido, just west of Meyers Avenue.

E. Barham Drive is currently built as a four-lane roadway undiv ided roadway (two-way left-turn lane median) from Woodland Parkway to east of La Moree Road, wh ere it transitions to a two-lane undivided roadway with a two-way left turn lane median) to the city limits. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. The four-lane section de scribed provides Class II bicyc le lanes while the two-lane section does not provide separate bicycle facilities. On-street parking is generally prohibited La Moree Road is a two-lane local collector on the City of San Marcos Mobility Element . The posted speed limit is 25 mph. and curbside parking is prohibite d in both directions. No sidewalks are provided. Bicycle facilities are not provided.

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Manual hand counts at the study area intersections, including b icycle and pedestrian counts, were conducted in September 2018 between the hours of 7:00-9:00 AM a nd 4:00-6:00 PM while schools were in session. A growth factor of 1% per year for three years (3% total) was added to the traffic counts to represent Year 2021 conditions.

Table 3–1 is a summary of the average daily traffic volumes conducted by Count Data in December 2018 with a 3% growth factor applied.

Figure 3–2 shows the Existing Traffic Volumes. Appendix A contains the manual count sheets.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
8 TABLE 3–1

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Street Segment ADT a
E. Barham Drive
Woodland Parkway to Project Driveway (West) 18,025
Project Driveway (West) to Project Driveway (East) 18,025 Project Driveway (East) to La Moree Road 18,025
East of La Moree Road 18,025
Footnotes:
a. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. The only recent traffic count wi thin the study area was obtained from the approved Su nrise Residential project for the street segment of Barham Drive between Woodland Parkway and Meyers Avenue

?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 8:50 AM
Date: 3/14/2021
N:\3293\Figures
Existing Conditions Diagram
Figure 3-1
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
?
!"$
!"$
Êe
e
e
!"$
Êe
e
e
Êe
e
e
Êe
e
e
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
Rancheros Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
Rancheros Dr
Barham Dr
E. Barham Dr
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 WB Ramps
DDL
JJL
DJJ
DJ
DB
JL
DJK
DJK
DJL
DJJL
DJJ
DDM
JJM
JJ
JK
JJ
JJ DL
JJ
DJJ
1 2
3 4
76 5
Future
3U
45mph
BR
BR
2U
45mph
BR
BR
4U*
BR
BR
4D
4U*
BR
BR
45mph
4U*
BR
BR 45mph
4U*
BR
BR
OL
Study Intersection
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turning Movements
Number of Travel Lanes
Posted Speed Limit
Divided / Undivided Roadway
Bike Route
Two-Way Left-Turn Median
Right-Turn Overlap Phase
#
2/4/6
35mph
DJL
STOP
U / D
BR
*
OL
Inland Rail Trail
Future
YIELD
0 0
0 0
"
0 0 0
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
18,025
18,025
18,025
18,025
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 9:02 AM
Date: 3/14/2021
Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 3-2
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
?
L D
J
J
D J
L D
J L
LJ D
LJD
LJD
DLJ
L DD
LJ
J
J
J
J
J
JD
LD
LJ
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Barham Dr
E. Barham DrRancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
Woodland Pkwy
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
SR-78 WB Ramps
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
28 / 15
470 / 233
950 / 725
634 / 1,040
602 / 491
319 / 206
39 / 77
182 / 93
224 / 491
182 / 217
529 / 478
437 / 375
15 / 14 10 / 30
255 / 137
79 / 5554 / 47
150 / 392
192 / 146
61 / 164
299 / 418
83 / 158
619 / 351
320 / 529
324 / 406
297 / 330
507 / 396
905 / 1,050
275 / 501
1,226 / 1,579
275 / 501
1,226 / 1,579
235 / 435
31 / 9277 / 72
40 / 66
30 / 64
526 / 937
Future
Future
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT (Weekday)
Inland Rail Trail
0 0
0 0
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
11 4.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The City of San Marcos’ Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 2020) specifically address the requirements of California Senate Bill (SB) 743 which mandated specific types of CEQA analysis of transportation projects effective July 1, 2020.

Prior to implementation of SB 743, CEQA transportation analyses of individual projects typically determined impacts on the circulation system in terms of roadwa y delay and/or capacity usage at specific locations, such as street intersections or roadway seg ments. SB 743, signed into law in September 2013, required changes to the guidelines for CEQA tra nsportation analysis. The changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining signi ficant impacts. The purpose of SB 743 is to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the de velopment of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.

Under SB 743, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS and other similar vehicle delay or capac ity metrics may no longer serve as transportation impact metrics for CEQA analysis. The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated the CEQA Guidelines and provided a final technical advisory in December 2018, which recommends vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appro priate measure of transportation impacts under CEQA. The Californi a Natural Resources Agency cer tified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines including the Guidelines section implementing SB 743. The changes have been approved by the Office of the Administrative Law and are now in effect.

While VMT is the preferred quantitative metric for assessing po tentially significant transportation impacts under CEQA, it should be noted that SB 743 does not pre vent a city or county from using metrics such as LOS as part of the application of local general plan policies, municipal and zoning codes, conditions of approval, or any other planning requirements through a city’s planning approval process; cities can still ensure adequate operation of the tran sportation system in terms of transportation congestion measures related to vehicular delay a nd roadway capacity. As such, the City can continue to require congestion-related transportation analysis and mitigation projects through planning approval processes outside CEQA.

To comply with the requirements of SB 743, the City of San Marc os has prepared its Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 2020) to provide gui dance on conducting transportati on impact analyses in the City as follows:
 CEQA Analysis Requirements: Re quirements for conducting CEQA an alysis, which consists of SB 743-consistent VMT analysis as well as assessing impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, hazards, emergency access, and other impacts.  Local Transportation Analysis Re quirements: Requirements for co nducting LOS analysis, site access assessments, and other local transportati on analyses for non-CEQA purposes.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
12 This study presents a SB 743-consistent VMT analysis to determi ne and evaluate the potential impacts to the local roadway system due to the proposed Hallama rk Barham Specifc Plan Project. In addition to the VMT analysis, a Local Transportation Analysis w as also prepared that focuses on automobile delay/LOS, consistent with the City’s guidelines. Th e LOS analysis was conducted to identify roadway deficiencies in the Project study area and recommend Project improvements to address such deficiency; however, the CEQA significance determi nation for the proposed Project is based only on VMT and not on LOS.

4.1 CEQA Analysis Methodology
The following flow chart from the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines depicts how a project would be analyzed under VMT-based metrics.

-51:1-M ◄,.WHM
Se:~ons Out
Cond1.1:c.t Screening
Crt •erla Proce-dure
(see Figu1re 2) VMT Analysis Completl:ld
DetaHed VMT Ana ysls Req1ulred l
Calculate
Project VMT
Dovolop Mirtigation
Measures
Signiificant and Unavoidable
No
Yes
VMT Analysis Complehd
May be Considered Less than
Significant with Mitigation

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
13 4.1.1 Project Screening
Several screening approaches are provided to identify when a pr oject should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. The following flowchart from the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines depicts how project would be analyzed under the City’s screeni ng criteria. A project that meets at least one of the screening criteria would be considered to have a less- than-significant VMT impact due to project or location characteristics.

4.1.2 VMT Estimating Tools
If a project is not presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact due to project characteristics and/or location, a transportation VMT analysis using the SANDAG Regional Travel Demand Model is required per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The recommended tools to estimate VMT are outlined below.
 SANDAG Travel Demand Model: The San Diego Association of Govern ments (SANDAG) regional travel demand model can be used to estimate V MT and traffic l"R'Jm mu, ·. , c11m 1w
WIHI G., ......... I ...
1Pto!DEI murt Iba Ila• cll
s..,..,1 , Gr,,...,h, O,J:!J;>!!lflLlmtv AHi~
"'"""'"in>m,a,o 1h01
• F.l.i:i:,,Qi_M
patkl!'tlllilli'l'D<fid
....... lntcl i>1 Murtlclpal Cod•
• Ca l"'-n'I:" Ga11t1nd Part
• 1i:i...1 ,m>t r11>1aat affant.l>.I• l>C>u~[n51
P'RlilKt mart lnoarpor-. i. •Im ■••
llmd ua clu: ,a<Jt•rtlllla.
t11..,._ ,;locpsltr~ .and mill) t<J
danlapm ■ n.t In 1 "''"""" •
C nnot b,o npplh•d lo •• I p,af ■ ch.
'Vies
VMT Ana,i:;sJ~ Complete
OR
------ ------
VMT Amll!f5- IS Comp!C!IO
--------------
OR
C::on,duct Dctallcd VMT Anillr!ls

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
14 volumes in the City. This tool can be used to estimate VMT effi ciency metrics specific to a project, as well as total citywide VMT.
 SANDAG Online VMT Tool: SANDAG has prepared an online VMT estim ating tool to estimate VMT efficiency metrics for residential and employment projects. This tool maps VMT by census tract in San Diego County.

The use of the SANDAG online VMT mapping tool should be limited to individual land-use projects where an efficiency metric (such as VMT per capita or per employee) is being estimated. In addition, the use of the online tool shoul d be limited to projects genera ting fewer than 2,400 daily vehicle trips, with trip generation estimated using SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002).

4.2 Local Transportation Analysis Methodology
In addition to the CEQA analysis, a non-CEQA local transportati on analysis may be required to evaluate the effects of a development project on the circulatio n network, primarily on local access and circulation in the proximity of a project site. This analys is will address traffic operations, safety issues and needed project design features related to a proposed land use project, as well as site access and internal circulation.

A local transportation analysis is required for projects generating more than 1,000 daily vehicle trips or more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips (if consistent with th e latest version of the City’s General Plan) or generating at least 500 daily vehicle trips or at leas t 50 peak hour vehicle trips if inconsistent with the City’s latest General Plan. This determin ation should be made using SANDAG trip generation rates (or ITE or local rates if an applicable S ANDAG rate is not available); mixed- use project trip generation should take internalization into account.

Existing, Interim Year, Interim Year Plus Project, Horizon Year, and Horizon Year Plus Project peak hour intersection LOS must be ev aluated for all study intersect ions using the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.

Roadway segments should be analyzed by calculating daily LOS us ing the daily volume capacities detailed below based on average daily traffic (ADT).

4.2.1 Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment under vari ous traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors su ch as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roa dway segment or an intersecti on. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A rep resenting the best operating c onditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
15 4.2.2 Intersections
Signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average veh icle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 1 9 o f t h e Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 10) computer software. The delay values (represented in sec onds) were qualified with a cor responding intersection LOS. City of Santee and Caltrans location-specific signal timing information such as minimum greens, cycle lengths, splits for the freeway interchanges and real-time peak hour field observations were included in the analysis, where available.

Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average ve hicle delay and LOS was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapters 20 and 21 of the HCM 6 with the assistance of the Synchro (version 10) computer software.

4.2.3 Street Segments
Street segment analysis is based upon the comparison of daily traffic volumes (ADTs) to the City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classifications, Capacity, and LOS Table , attached in Appendix B . T h i s table provides segment capacitie s for different street classifi cations, based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
16 5.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

5.1 VMT Significant Impact Thresholds
Based on the City of San Marcos’ Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n VMT thresholds of significance are shown in Table 5–1.

TABLE 5–1

VMT IMPACT THRESHOLDS BY LAND USE TYPE
Land Use Type Impact Threshold
Residential Uses
A significant impact will occur if the project generates VMT per resident exceeding a level of 15 percent below
the existing countywide average.

Employment Projects
(including office and industrial)
A significant impact will occur if the project generates VMT per employee exceeding a level of 15 percent below
the existing countywide average.

Retail Uses A significant impact will occur if the project would result in a net increase in existing total citywide VMT.

Mixed-Use Projects
Evaluate each component of a mixed-use project
independently and apply the significance threshold for
each land use type, incorporating internalization
reductions.

Redevelopment Projects
(replaces existing uses)
If the project results in a net increase in VMT, apply the appropriate significance threshold for the project land use type(s).

Source: City of San Marcos’ Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 2020)

5.2 Level of Service Standards
The City of San Marcos strives to maintain intersection and roa dway segment operations based on LOS standards outlined in the General Plan Mobility Element. If the addition of the traffic generated from a proposed project results in any one of the following, im provements should be identified to increase performance to acceptable or pre-project conditions under each scenario:
 Triggers an intersection operating at acceptable LOS to operate at unacceptable LOS and increases the delay by more than 2.0 seconds.
 Increases the delay for a study intersection that is already op erating at unacceptable LOS by more than 2.0 seconds.
 Triggers a roadway segment operating at acceptable LOS to operate at unacceptable LOS and increases the volume/capacity (V/C) ratio by more than 0.02.  Increases the V/C ratio for a study roadway segment that is alr eady operating at unacceptable LOS by more than 0.02.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
17 6.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS

6.1 Screening Criteria
The screening criteria described in Section 4.1.1 are not applicable to the Project. Since the Project is not screened out, a detailed tran sportation VMT per resident an alysis using the SANDAG Regional Travel Demand Model was conducted per the City of San Marcos’ Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.

6.2 VMT Analysis
The SANDAG Series 13 Year 2020 Travel Demand Model was used to calculate the Project’s VMT per resident. The model generate s a land use-specific average t rip length as well as an average daily volume, which ultimately calculates the total VMT per resident. The SANDAG Series 13 Year 2020 Travel Demand Model results are included in Appendix C.

Table 6–1 summarizes the Regional average baseline VMT results provided by SANDAG. As seen in Table 6–1, the Regional average baseline VMT per resident is 17.6 miles per resident. For the purpose of determining the significance of VMT impacts, the Pro ject VMT per capita would need to be 15% below the Regional average, which equates to 14.96 VMT per resident.

Similar to the Regional average baseline calculations, the Proj ect VMT per resident was determined.

The Project site is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1026. As shown in Table 6–1, the average VMT per resident for TAZ 1026 is calculated at 18.2 VMT per resident.

Since the Project VMT per residen t is higher than 85% of the Re gional average, a significant VMT impact is calculated.

The results of the Project VMT comparison indicate that the Pro ject would exceed the significance threshold by 21.66%. This would require mitigation of 21.66% or more to reduce the VMT impact to less-than-significant.

TABLE 6–1

PROJECT VMT FINDINGS
Scenario Regional Baseline
VMT per Capita
Significance
Thresholda
Project VMT
per Capita
Transportation
Impact?
(Over
Threshold)
VMT per Resident 17.6 14.96 18.2 Yes
Footnotes:
a. 85% of the Regional Baseline VMT per Capita
Source: SANDAG, October, 2020

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
18 6.3 VMT Impacts Summary & Mitigation Measures
When a Project results in a significant impact, CEQA requires m itigation measures to be implemented to reduce or mitigate impacts. With the shift away from LOS, delay, and vehicular capacity metrics and impact thresholds to VMT thresholds, mitig ating significant impacts now requires focusing on measures to shorten vehicle trip distances or reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips (in favor of carpooling, ta king public transit, bicycling, walking, and other modes), since VMT in essence is a function of the number of vehicle trips and the ir associated trip lengths. Whereas previous LOS-related mitigation measures focused on expanding r oadway facilities primarily for vehicles, VMT-reducing mitigatio n measures can include modifyin g project characteristics, implementing on- or off-site improvements to transit, pedestria n and bicycle facilities, parking management strategies, and Tran sportation Demand Management (TD M) strategies to either reduce or shorten vehicular trips.

Specific VMT mitigation strategies applicable to projects in th e City of San Marcos have been developed based on a review of re levant literature and research . The selected strategies, as well as the applicable VMT reduction percentages and other attributes, included in Appendix I, a r e primarily based on a review of the guidance published by the Ca lifornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in August 2010 ( Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures).

It should be noted that there is a limit to the amount of VMT r eduction that can be applied to a development project. Within the City of San Marcos, with its su burban land use and transportation context, CAPCOA indicates that the maximum feasible total reduc tion combining all measures is 15%.

Based on the VMT analysis presented above, a significant transportation impact is calculated. The results of the Project VMT comparison indicate that the Project would exceed the significance threshold by 21.66%. This would require mitigation of 21.66% or more to reduce the VMT impact to less-than-significant. Since the maximum feasible total VMT red uction combining all measures is 15%, the Project’s impact is considered significant and unmitigated.

However, the CAPCOA measure LUT-1: Increase Density , was identified as a measure that would reduce the Project’s VMT as cal culated using the SANDAG Series 13 Year 2020 Travel Demand Model, thereby partially mitigating the Project’s significant transportation impact. This measure was selected since the Project’s features meet the measure’s descri ption and applicability criteria. A brief description of CAPCOA measure LUT-1 is provided below.
 LUT-1 Increase Density: Designing the project with increased de nsities (i.e., dwellings per unit area). Increased dens ity affects the distance people t ravel and provides greater options for the mode of travel they choose. This measure is app licable for residential projects in a suburban area.

To calculate the VMT reduction for this measure, a comparative VMT calculation was conducted between the residential density in TAZ 1026 and in the Project site. The residential density for TAZ

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
19 1026 was calculated by taking the total number of dwelling units contained in the TAZ and dividing it by the total acreage on which the dwelling units lay. Based on the weighted average of the data, the residential density for TAZ 1026 is 7.03 dwelling units per acre. The average residential density of the Project site is 14.3 dwelling units per acre. The calculations are included in Appendix I.

Using the residential densities determined for TAZ 1026 and the Project site, the corresponding VMT reductions were calculated using the CAPCOA methodology for LUT 1. The VMT reduction utilized for LUT-1 is the differ ence between the Project site V MT Reduction and the total TAZ VMT Reduction. Therefore, the Project’s net-VMT reduction associated with LUT-1 is calculated to be 6.2%. This 6.2% reduction in the Project’s unadjusted VMT per capita of 18.2 results in a Project VMT per Capita of 17.07.

Additional information is included in Appendix I.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
20 7.0 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS In addition to the VMT analysis presented above, a Local Transp ortation Analysis (LTA) was also prepared that focuses on automobile delay and Level of Service ( L O S ) . T h e L O S a n a l y s i s w a s conducted to identify Project ef fects on the roadway operations in the Project study area and recommend Project improvements to address noted deficiencies; h owever, the CEQA impact significance determination for the proposed Project is based only on VMT and not on LOS.

7.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Table 7-1 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations for existing conditions. As seen in Table 7-1, all intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, with the exception of Rancheros Drive / SR-78 WB ramps which is calculate to operate at LOS F.

Appendix D contains the Existing intersection analysis calculation worksheets.

7.2 Daily Street Segment Levels of Service
Table 7-2 summarizes the existing roadway segment operations. As seen in Table 7-2, the study area segments are calculated to currently operate at LOS C.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
21 TABLE 7–1

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing
Delaya L O S b

1. E Barham Dr / SR-78 EB Off Ramp Signal AM 30.0 C
PM 17.0 B

2. Rancheros Dr / SR-78 WB Ramp AWSC d AM 69.3 F
PM 55.0 F

3. Rancheros Dr / Woodland Pkwy Signal AM 31.3 C
PM 25.2 C

4. E Barham Dr / Woodland Pkwy Signal AM 49.1 D
PM 45.6 D

5. E Barham Dr / Project Driveway (West)c - AM - -
PM - -

6. E Barham Dr / Project Driveway (East)c - AM - -
PM - -

7. E Barham Dr / La Moore Rd Signal AM 4.8 A
PM 4.8 A

Footnotes:
b. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
c. Level of Service.
d. Intersection does not currently exist
e. AWSC – All Way Stop Control

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED

DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS

0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A

10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B

20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C

35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D

55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
22 TABLE 7–2

EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Classification Capacity
(LOS E) a ADT b L O S c V/C d
E. Barham Drive
Woodland Parkway to Project
Driveway (West)
4-Ln Collector/
Secondary Arterial 30,000 18,025 C 0.601
Project Driveway (West) to Project
Driveway (East)
4-Ln Collector/
Secondary Arterial 30,000 18,025 C 0.601
Project Driveway (East) to La Moree
Road
4-Ln Collector/
Secondary Arterial 30,000 18,025 C 0.601
East of La Moree Road 4-Ln Collector/
Secondary Arterial 30,000 18,025 C 0.601
Footnotes:
a. Capacities based on City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification Table. b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
23 8.0 TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION, & ASSIGNMENT

8.1 Project Trip Generation
Trip generation rates were obtained from the (Not So) Brief guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region , April 2002 by SANDAG. The “Multi-family Residential” (6- 20 DU/acre)” trip rate was used to estimate the Project trip generation.

Table 8–1 tabulates the total Project traff ic generation. The Project is calculated to generate 1,208 ADT with 19 inbound / 78 outbound trips during the AM pea k hour and 85 inbound / 36 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.

TABLE 8–1

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Quantity
Daily Trip Ends
(ADT)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% of
ADT
In:Out
Split
Volume % of
ADT
In:Out
Split
Volume
Rate Volume In Out Total In Out Total
Multi-
Family
Residential
(6- 20 DU
/acre)
151 DU
8 /DU 1,208 8% 20 : 80 19 78 97 10% 70 : 30 85 36 121
Footnotes:
a. Trip generation rates were obtained from the (Not So) Brief guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 by SANDAG

8.2 Construction Trip Generation
Grading of the Project site will consist of approximately 36,394 cubic yards (CY) of cut material and 91,526 CY of fill material requirin g an import of approximately 46,341 cy of material. The grading phase of the Project is not expected to generate trips above th e trips associated with the 151-unit multi-family residential developm ent. Therefore, the grading ph ase will not result in any traffic related significant impacts or substantial effects above those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e P r o j e c t a n d disclosed in this study.

8.3 Trip Distribution/Assignment
The Project traffic was distributed and assigned to the street system based on the Project’s proximity to state highways and arterials, the Project’s two full-access driveways and based on other traffic studies prepared for developments in the area.

Figure 8–1 depicts the Project Traffic Distribution, and Figure 8–2 d e p i c t s t h e P r o j e c t T r a f f i c Assignment.
?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 2:29 PM
Date: 5/6/2021
Project Traffic Distribution
Figure 8-1
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
?
D
j
J
d
L
J
jd
L
D
J
lj
jD
ld
LJ
JD
ld
Lj
J
D
lj
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Barham Dr
E. Barham DrRancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
Woodland Pkwy
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
SR-78 WB Ramps
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
1 2
3 4
76 5
10% 25%
5%
25%
30%
10%
10%
20%
30%
40%
10%
20%
5%
55%
25%
10%
25%
5%
25%
30%
35%
15%
45%
20%
15%
20%
20%
30%
5%
25%
5%
25%
25%
10%
35%
43%
5%Study Intersection
Inbound Trip Distribution
Outbound Trip Distribution
Regional Trip Distribution
#
XX %
DJL
djl
Inland Rail Trail
53%
50%
48%
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 ?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
520
640
580
600
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 9:29 AM
Date: 5/7/2021
Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 8-2
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
?
D
J
J
D
L
J
JD
L
DJ
LJ
JD
LD
LJ
JD
LD
LJ
J
D
LJ
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Barham Dr
E. Barham DrRancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
Woodland Pkwy
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
SR-78 WB Ramps
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
5 / 21
8 / 3
2 / 9
20 / 9
5 / 21
1 / 4
3 / 2
20 / 9
5 / 21
6 / 25
7 / 30
23 / 11
8 / 3
8 / 4
3 / 13
16 / 7
23 / 10
9 / 38
4 / 17
3 / 13
3 / 17
31 / 15
8 / 4
4 / 17
16 / 7
5 / 26
1 / 4
4 / 2
43 / 20
1 2
3 4
76 5
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT (Weekday)
Inland Rail Trail
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
26 9.0 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS OF NEAR-TERM (YEAR 2025) CONDITIONS The following section presents t he analysis of study area inter sections and street segments under Near-Term conditions without and with the proposed Project. Ass uming Project approvals in late 2021, the project is expected to start construction in late 2022 with an occupancy of Spring 2025.

9.1 Near-Term Year 2025 Traffic Volumes
Year 2025 traffic volumes were calculated based on the manual h and counts at the study area intersections conducted in Septe mber 2018. A growth factor of 1 % p e r y e a r f o r s e v e n y e a r s ( 7 % total) was added to the traffic counts to represent Year 2025 conditions.

Figure 9–1 shows the Near-Term (Year 2025) without Project traffic volume s. Figure 9–2 shows the Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project traffic volumes.

9.2 Near-Term (Year 2025) Without Project

9.2.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 9–1 summarizes the peak hour inte rsection operations for the Near-Term (Year 2025) without Project condition. As seen in Table 9–1, all intersections are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with the excep tion of Rancheros Drive / SR-78 WB ramps which is calculate to operate at LOS F.

Appendix E contains the Near-Term (Year 2025) without Project intersectio n analysis calculation worksheets.

9.2.2 Segment Operations
Table 9–2 summarizes the segment operations throughout the study area for the Near-Term (Year 2025) without Project condition. As seen in Table 9–2, all of the study area segments are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS C.

9.3 Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project

9.3.1 Intersections Analysis
Table 9–1 summarizes the intersection ope rations through the study area for the Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project condition. As seen in Table 9–1, with the addition of Project traffic all intersections are calculated to continue to operate acceptably at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of Rancheros Drive / SR-78 WB Ramps wh ich is calculate to operate at LOS F under both “without” and “w ith Project” conditions. A sub stantial LOS related effect is identified at this intersection since the Project-related incre ase in delay exceeds the LOS standard threshold maximum of 2.0 seconds.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
27 westbound left-turns into the site. The substantial effect is only for the outbound left-turns during the PM peak hour.

Appendix F contains the Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project intersection analy sis calculation worksheets.

9.3.2 Segment Operations
Table 9–2 summarizes the segment operations throughout the study area fo r the Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project condition. As seen in Table 9–2, with the addition of Project traffic all of the study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS C, a nd therefore roadway improvements are not required.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
28 T ABLE 9–1
NEAR-TERM (YEAR 2025) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour Movement
Year 2025
Without Project
Year 2025
With Project
Δ c
Consistent
w/ City
LOS
Standards?f Delay a LOS
b Delay LOS

1. E Barham Dr / SR-78
EB Off Ramp Signal AM Average 35.9 D 37.6 D 1.7 Yes
PM 21.7 C 25.5 C 3.8 Yes

2. Rancheros Dr / SR-78
WB Ramp AWSCg AM Average 79.7 F 88.2 F 8.5 No
PM 63.8 F 68.9 F 5.1 No

3. Rancheros Dr /
Woodland Pkwy Signal AM Average 35.0 C 37.2 D 2.2 Yes PM 26.5 C 27.7 C 1.2 Yes

4. E Barham Dr /
Woodland Pkwy Signal AM Average 54.5 D 54.6 D 0.1 Yes
PM 43.8 D 48.5 D 4.7 Yes

5. E Barham Dr / Project
Driveway (West) MSSCd
AM
NBL - - 30.0 D - Yes
NBR - - 14.9 B - Yes
WBL - - 12.5 B - Yes
PM
NBL - - 46.7 E - No
NBR - - 18.6 C - Yes
WBL - - 16.5 C - Yes

6. E Barham Dr / Project
Driveway (East) MSSC
AM
NBL
NBR
- - 27.7 D - Yes
- - 15.4 C - Yes
WBL - - 12.5 B - Yes
PM
NBL - - 43.0 E - No
NBR - - 18.7 C - Yes
WBL - - 16.3 C - Yes

7. E Barham Dr / La
Moore Rd Signal AM Average 4.8 A 4.8 A 0.0 Yes
PM 4.9 A 4.9 A 0.0 Yes

Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. Δ denotes the increase in delay due to Project.
d. MSSC = Minor Street Stop Controlled intersection. Worst-Case movement approach delay and LOS reported.
e. Intersection does not exist under “without Project” conditions. f. City of San Marcos strives to maintain intersection and roadway segment operations based on LOS standards (LOS D or better) outlined in the General Plan Mobility Element.
g. AWSC = All Way Stop Controlled intersection

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED

DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS

0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A

10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B

20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C

35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D

55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
29 TABLE 9–2
NEAR-TERM (YEAR 2025) STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Capacity
(LOS E) a
Year 2025 Without
Project Year 2025 With Project
Δe
Consistent
w/ City
LOS
Standards?f ADT b L O S c V / C d ADT LOS V / C
E. Barham Drive
Woodland Parkway to Project
Driveway (West) 30,000 18,930 C 0.631 19,570 C 0.652 0.021 Yes Project Driveway (West) to
Project Driveway (East) 30,000 18,930 C 0.631 19 ,530 C 0.651 0.020 Yes Project Driveway (East) to La
Moree Road 30,000 18,930 C 0.631 19, 510 C 0.650 0.019 Yes East of La Moree Road 30,000 18, 930 C 0.631 19,450 C 0.648 0.017 Yes

Footnotes:
a. Capacities based on City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification Table b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
e. Δ denotes a project-induced increase in the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio. f. City of San Marcos strives to maintain intersection and roadway segment operations based on LOS standards (LOS D or better) ou tlined in the General Plan Mobility Element.
?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
18,930
18,930
18,930
18,930
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 2:25 PM
Date: 3/17/2021
Near-Term (Year 2025) without Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 9-1
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
?
L D
J
J
D J
L D
J L
LJ D
LJD
LJD
DLJ
L DD
LJ
J
J
J
J
J
JD
LD
LJ
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Barham Dr
E. Barham DrRancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
Woodland Pkwy
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
SR-78 WB Ramps
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
29 / 16
488 / 242
987 / 753
659 / 1,081
625 / 510
332 / 214
41 / 80
189 / 96
232 / 510
189 / 226
550 / 496
454 / 389
16 / 15 11 / 31
265 / 142
82 / 5756 / 49
156 / 408
199 / 152
63 / 170
310 / 434
87 / 164
610 / 350
320 / 520
330 / 400
300 / 330
510 / 400
900 / 1,030
286 / 520
1,273 / 1,640
286 / 520
1,273 / 1,640
244 / 452
32 / 9580 / 75
42 / 68
31 / 66
547 / 974
1 2
3 4
76 5
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT (Weekday)
Future
Inland Rail Trail
Future
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 0
?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
19,450
19,570
19,510
19,530
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 7:15 AM
Date: 5/7/2021
Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 9-2
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
?
L D
J
J
D J
L D
J L
LJ D
LJD
LJD
DLJ
L DD
LJ
J
JD
LD
LJ
JD
LD
LJ
JD
LD
LJ
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Barham Dr
E. Barham DrRancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
Woodland Pkwy
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
SR-78 WB Ramps
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
29 / 16
493 / 263
995 / 756
661 / 1,090
645 / 519
332 / 214
41 / 80
189 / 96
232 / 510
194 / 247
550 / 496
455 / 393
16 / 15 11 / 31
265 / 142
82 / 5756 / 49
159 / 410
219 / 161
63 / 170
315 / 455
87 / 164
610 / 350
326 / 545
330 / 400
323 / 341
518 / 403
907 / 1,060
294 / 524
3 / 13
16 / 7
23 / 10
9 / 38
1,277 / 1,657
289 / 533
3 / 17
31 / 15
8 / 4
4 / 17
1,289 / 1,647
249 / 478
32 / 9580 / 75
43 / 72
35 / 68
590 / 994
1 2
3 4
76 5
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT (Weekday)
Inland Rail Trail
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
32 10.0 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS OF HORIZON YEAR (YEAR 2050)

CONDITIONS

10.1 Year 2050 Network Conditions
There are a series of improvements to the SR-78 freeway system in the vicinity of the Project that are identified in the City of San Marcos’ Capital Improvement P rogram (CIP) as the “Woodland Parkway Highway 78 Interchange” project (CIP project code no. 8 8005). These improvements would directly improve substanda rd locations in the study area. The following is a discussion of these improvements, organized by corridor.

Rancheros Drive Corridor: widen Rancheros Drive to four-lane major street standards from the SR-78 Westbound Ramps to Woodland Parkway, including Class II b ike lanes. Signalize the Rancheros Drive/SR-78 Westbound Ramps intersection. Provide dual westbound-to-southbound left-turn lanes from Rancheros Drive to the SR-78 westbound on- ramp. Widen the SR-78 westbound on-ramp from Rancheros Drive to include two SOV and o ne HOV lanes. Widen the SR-78 westbound off-ramp to Ranche ros Drive to include one left -turn lane and two right-turn lanes.

Woodland Parkway Corridor: widen the Woodland Parkway undercrossing at SR-78 from Rancheros Drive to Barham Drive to four-lane major street stand ards. Provide two-travel lanes in each direction, with back-to-back left-turn lanes at both Ba rham Drive and Rancheros Drive.

Provide Class II bike lanes.

Barham Drive Corridor: realign Barham Drive from west of Warplex Avenue to Woodland Parkway to provide a six -lane prime arterial transitioning to a four-lane major street east of Woodland Parkway. Widen and realign the existing SR-78 eastboun d off-ramp to include two left-turn lanes and one right-tur n lane. Construct a new SR-78 eastbound on-ramp from E.

Barham Drive to include two SOV and one HOV lanes. Install a traffic signal at the realigned E.

Barham Drive/ SR-78 eastbound ramps intersection. Remove the ex isting on-ramp to eastbound SR-78 located east of La Moree Road, and the associated signalized intersection.

SR-78 Freeway: widen and improve SR-78 to an 8-lane facility with two managed lanes in the median. Provide necessary on-ra mp and off-ramp transitions, acc eleration lanes and trap lanes, as required to provide the improvements listed above.

These improvements will be developed in phases, although the ti ming of delivery of these improvements is unknown. While these improvements were conservatively not assumed in the near- term analysis, they were assumed in place in the long-term.

The above-listed improvements ar e assumed in the baseline condi tions for Year 2050 analysis of study area intersections and street segments. Figure 10–1 depicts Year 2050 network conditions.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
33 10.2 Year 2050 Traffic Volumes
LLG reviewed several recent traffic studied prepared in the Cit y of San Marcos that included buildout traffic volume assumptio ns, specifically the traffic s tudy for the approved Sunrise Residential project located just east of the Project. The Sunri se Residential project used the SANDAG Series 12 Year 2035 traffic model to forecast Year 2035 traffic volumes in the study area, assuming the Woodland Parkway Highway 78 Interchange project im provements discussed above were in place.

In order to conduct an analysis of Year 2050 conditions based o n the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, LLG conducted a comparison of t he SANDAG Series 12 Year 2035 traffic volumes from the Sunrise Residential project traffic study to the SANDAG Series 13 Year 2050 model traffic volumes. The Series 13 Year 2050 volumes were found to be lower than the Series 12 Year 2035 volumes. Therefore, in order to provide a conservative analysis a n d b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r documents prepared for projects in the area, the Year 2035 traf fic volumes taken directly from the Sunrise Residential traffic study were used for the analysis of Year 2050 conditions instead of assuming lower volumes in Year 2050 as compared to Year 2035.

Figure 10–2 depicts Year 2050 Without P roject traffic volumes. Figure 10–3 depicts Year 2050 With Project traffic volumes.

10.3 Year 2050 Without Project Analysis

10.3.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 10–1 summarizes the Year 2050 without Project peak hour intersection analysis. As shown in Table 10–1, all intersections are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Appendix G contains the Year 2050 Without Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets.

10.3.2 Segment Operations
Table 10–2 summarizes the Year 2050 without Project daily street segment operations. As shown in Table 10–2, all street segments are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS C.

10.4 Year 2050 With Project Analysis

10.4.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 10–1 summarizes the Year 2050 with Project peak hour intersection a nalysis. As shown in Table 10–1, with the addition of Project traffic all intersections are ca lculated to continue to operate acceptably at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours w ith the exception of the northbound left-turn movements out of the Project’s western and e a s t e r n d r i v e w a y s w h i c h a r e calculated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. A subst antial LOS related effect is identified at these approaches due to the deficient LOS E. It s hould be noted that all other movements operate acceptably, including the northbound right-tu rns out of the site and the

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
34 westbound left-turns into the site. The substantial effect is only for the outbound left-turns during the PM peak hour.

Appendix H contains the Year 2050 With Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets.

10.4.2 Segment Operations
Table 10–2 summarizes the Year 2050 with P roject daily street segment ope rations. As shown in Table 10–2, with the addition of project traffic all street segments are calculated to operate at LOS C, and therefore roadway improvements are not required.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
35 TABLE 10–1
YEAR 2050 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour Movement
Year 2050 Year 2050
+ Project Δ c
Consistent
w/ City LOS
Standards?f Delay a L O S b D e l a y L O S

1. E Barham Dr / SR-78
EB Off Ramp Signal AM Average 6.7 A 6.7 A 0.0 Yes
PM 4.9 A 5.0 A 0.1 Yes

2. Rancheros Dr / SR-78
WB Ramp Signal AM Average 14.4 B 14.7 B 0.3 Yes
PM 18.7 B 18.9 B 0.2 Yes

3. Rancheros Dr /
Woodland Pkwy Signal AM Average 24.9 C 26.0 C 1.1 Yes
PM 21.9 C 22.7 C 0.8 Yes

4. E Barham Dr /
Woodland Pkwy Signal AM Average 15.6 B 15.7 B 0.1 Yes
PM 28.3 C 32.7 C 4.4 Yes

5. E Barham Dr / Project
Driveway (West) MSSCd
AM
NBL - - 27.3 D - Yes
NBR - - 14.3 B - Yes
WBL - - 12.0 B - Yes
PM
NBL - - 40.9 E - No
NBR - - 17.5 C - Yes
WBL - - 15.4 C - Yes

6. E Barham Dr / Project
Driveway (East) MSSC
AM
NBL
NBR
- - 25.7 D - Yes
- - 14.7 B - Yes
WBL - - 12.0 B - Yes
PM
NBL - - 38.1 E - No
NBR - - 17.5 C - Yes
WBL - - 15.2 C - Yes

7. E Barham Dr / La
Moore Rd Signal AM Average 5.1 A 5.1 A 0.0 Yes
PM 5.3 A 5.3 A 0.0 Yes

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED

DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS

0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A

10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B

20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C

35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D

55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
36 TABLE 10–2
YEAR 2050 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment LOS E a
Capacity
Year 2050 Year 2050 + Project Consistent
w/ City
LOS
Standards?f ADT b L O S c V / C d ADT LOS V/C Δ e
Barham Drive
Woodland Parkway to Project Driveway
(West) 30,000 18,380 C 0.613 19,020 C 0.634 0.021 Yes
Project Driveway (West) to Project
Driveway (East) 30,000 18,380 C 0.613 18,980 C 0.633 0.020 Yes Project Driveway (East) to La Moree Road 30,000 18,380 C 0.613 18,960 C 0.632 0.019 Yes East of La Moree Road 30,000 18,380 C 0.613 18,900 C 0.630 0.017 Yes Footnotes:
a. Capacities based on City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification Table b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
e. Δ denotes a project-induced increase in the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio. f. City of San Marcos strives to maintain intersection and roadway segment operations based on LOS standards (LOS D or better) ou tlined in the General Plan Mobility Element.

?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 1:16 PM
Date: 3/16/2021
N:\3293\Figures
Year 2050 Network Conditions
Figure 10-1
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
3U
45mph
BR
BR
2U
45mph
BR
BR
4U*
BR
BR
4D
4U*
BR
BR
45mph
4U*
BR
BR 45mph
4U*
BR
BR
OL
Inland Rail Trail
?
!"$
!"$
Êe
e
e
!"$
Êe
e
e
Êe
e
e
Êe
e
e
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Barham Dr
E. Barham Dr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
Woodland Pkwy
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
SR-78 WB Ramps
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
DDL
JJL
DJJ
DJ
DB
JL
DJK
DJK
DJL
DJJL
DJJ
DDM
JJM
JJ
JK
JJ
JJ DL
JJ
DJJ
1 2
3 4
76 5
Future
DLL
JJK
DJJJ
DDJ
K DLL
Future
Improvements shown in BOLD.
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
18,380
18,380
18,380
18,380
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 2:26 PM
Date: 3/17/2021
N:\3293\Figures
Year 2050 without Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 10-2
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
OL
Inland Rail Trail
?
L D
J
J
D J
L D
J L
LJ D
LJD
LJD
DLJ
L DD
LJ
J
J
J
J
J
JD
LD
LJ
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Barham Dr
E. Barham DrRancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
Woodland Pkwy
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
SR-78 WB Ramps
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
30 / 20
460 / 230
930 / 710
620 / 1,040
730 / 600
355 / 230
45 / 85
205 / 105
250 / 545
220 / 265
520 / 468
430 / 370
20 / 20 10 / 30
250 / 140
80 / 6060 / 50
150 / 390
190 / 150
60 / 160
290 / 410
90 / 160
610 / 350
320 / 520
320 / 400
290 / 320
500 / 390
880 / 1,020
294 / 534
1,200 / 1,540
294 / 534
1,200 / 1,540
251 / 464
33 / 9883 / 77
43 / 70
32 / 68
562 / 1,001
1 2
3 4
76 5
Future
Future
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
?
?
?
?
?
?
LaMoreeRd
ShellyDr
Rancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
WoodlandPky
BarhamDr
Barham Dr
EMissionRd
18,900
19,020
18,960
18,980
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 "Ã78
Time: 7:14 AM
Date: 5/7/2021
N:\3293\Figures
Year 2050 + Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 10-3
[
Barham Residential
Project
Site
OL
Inland Rail Trail
?
L D
J
J
D J
L D
J L
LJ D
LJD
LJD
DLJ
L DD
LJ
J
JD
LD
LJ
JD
LD
LJ
JD
LD
LJ
E. Barham Dr
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
Barham Dr
E. Barham DrRancheros Dr
Rancheros Dr
Woodland Pkwy
La Moree Rd
Project Dwy #2
E. Barham Dr
Project Dwy #1
SR-78 WB Ramps
Woodland Pkwy
E. Barham Dr
30 / 20
465 / 251
938 / 713
622 / 1,049
750 / 609
355 / 230
45 / 85
205 / 105
250 / 545
225 / 286
520 / 468
431 / 374
20 / 20 10 / 30
250 / 140
80 / 6060 / 50
153 / 392
210 / 159
60 / 160
295 / 431
90 / 160
610 / 350
326 / 545
320 / 400
313 / 331
508 / 393
887 / 1,050
302 / 538
3 / 13
16 / 7
23 / 10
9 / 38
1,204 / 1,557
297 / 547
3 / 17
31 / 15
8 / 4
4 / 17
1,216 / 1,547
256 / 490
33 / 9883 / 77
44 / 74
36 / 70
605 / 1,021
1 2
3 4
76 5
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
40 11.0 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION REVIEW

11.1 Site Access
A c c e s s t o t h e p r o j e c t s i t e w i l l b e v i a t w o d r i v e w a y s o n E . B a r ham Drive which will provide an internal loop through the project site and provide access to al l e y s . B o t h d r i v e w a y s w i l l b e unsignalized and will offer full access. A secondary emergency- only access is provided through the western boundary of the project site to connect to an existing emergency access driveway on the adjacent property which connects to Saddleback Way and then to E. Barham Drive. This access point is for emergency vehicles only and bollards would be put in place. Driveways and alleys within the project site will be private. In addition, the proje ct provides and accessible path of travel through the site and to each residence via pedestrian pathways.

The Project’s driveways calculated to operate acceptably at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Tables 9-1 and 10-1.

11.2 Parking
The project proposes a total of 349 parking spaces. This includ es 283 garage spaces associated with the units, which will be pre-wired for electric vehicle chargin g stations. An additional 10 assigned outdoor spaces and 56 guest spaces (50 open spaces, 4 ADA space s, 1 EV space and 1 postal delivery space).

11.3 Driveway Sight Distance Assessment
A line-of-sight assessment was conducted to determine if there is adequate sight distance for vehicles existing the Project sit e . S i g h t d i s t a n c e i s t h e l e n g th of roadway visible to a driver. The driver of a vehicle departing a driveway should have an unobstr ucted view of oncoming traffic to anticipate and avoid potential collisions.

Two outbound maneuvers can be completed at the driveways: the l eft-turn maneuver and the right- turn maneuver. The outbound left-turn maneuver requires first c learing eastbound th ru traffic, then entering the westbound stream of traffic. The required sight distance for this maneuver is affected by the amount of time it takes the st opped vehicle to turn left, c lear the eastbound traffic and reach average running speed of the westbound traffic without affecting the speed of approaching vehicles.

The outbound right-turn maneuver must have sufficient distance to permit entrance onto the intersection roadway and then accelerate to the posted speed li mit without being overtaken by approaching vehicles.

Table 1 of the City of San Marcos’ Intersection Sight Distance Guidelines, December 2020, lists the minimum sight distance requirements for the left and right-turn maneuvers based on design speeds.

The design speed of E. Barham Drive Barham is 50 mph, and there fore based on the Intersection Sight Distance Guidelines, 550’ of sight distance for the left-turn maneuver (looking eastbound) and 480’ of sight distance for the right-turn maneuver (looking westbound) should be provided.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
41 Based on the Sight Visibility Triangle exhibit prepared for the Project (included in Appendix J), an adequate amount of unobstructed si ght distance is provided look ing both to the east and west from both of the proposed driveways.

11.4 Fire Truck Turning Template Assessment
Firetruck turning templates were run within the Project site to ensure acceptable operations. The firetruck turning templates are included in Appendix K.

11.5 Vehicle Queuing
Access to the Project site will be via two unsignalized, full a ccess driveways on E. Barham Drive as described above. A two-way left-t urn lane along the Project fro ntage on E. Barham Drive currently exists and will help facilitate left-turns into and out of the Project site. In order to ensure the vehicle queue turning left into and out of the Project site won’t excee d the available storage length, resulting in potential congestion and backups along E. Barham Drive and w ithin the Project site, an assessment of the potential left-turn queues at the Project dri veways was conducted using the Synchro analysis software. An a ssessment of the potential eastb ound right-turn / thru lane queue at the intersection of E. Barham Drive / La Moree Road was also conducted at the City’s request.

Under Near-Term + Project conditions, the 95 th percentile queues at the locations listed above were calculated to be much less than the available storage during the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 11-1. The 95th-percentile queue is def ined to be the queue length t hat has only a 5-percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period. Therefore, the available storage is expected to contain the vehicular queues.

Appendix F contains the Near-Term (Year 2025) + Project queue calculation worksheets.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
42 TABLE 11-1

VEHICULAR QUEUE SUMMARY
Intersection Movement Peak
Hour
Available
Storage
(feet)
Year 2025
with Project Queue
(feet)
E. Barham Drive /
Project Driveway (West)
WBL AM >500’ <25’
PM <25’
NBL AM 100’ <25’
PM <25’

E. Barham Drive /
Project Driveway (East)
WBL AM >500’ <25’
PM <25’
NBL AM 100’ <25’
PM <25’

E. Barham Drive /
La Moree Road EBR/Thru AM >500’ 51’
PM 116’
General Notes:

1. 95th percentile queues reported.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
43 12.0 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW

12.1 Pedestrian Conditions
Pedestrian facilities are intermi ttently provided within the Pr oject study area. Paved sidewalks are provided along the south side of E. Barham Drive, on the east s ide of Woodland Parkway, and on both sides of La Moree Road. However, no sidewalks are currently provided along Rancheros Drive.

12.2 Transit Conditions
The project site is located within 1 mile of the Cal State San Marcos Sprinter light rail station and within 0.9 miles of the Nordahl Road Sprinter light rail statio n. Bus stops serving the North County Transit District (NCTD) Routes 305 and Route 347 are located ap proximately 0.7 miles from the project site Residents will be able to utilize these public tra nsit opportunities. A summary of the available transit service routes is provided below:

The SPRINTER hybrid rail line spans 22-miles and connects Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido – serving 15 stations a long Highway 78 corridor. The SPRINTER runs every 30 minutes in each direction Monday through Friday from approximately 4:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Saturday, Sunday, and holiday trains operate every 30 minutes between 10: 00 AM and 6:00 PM and hourly before 10:00 AM and after 6:00 PM.

Route 305 runs from the Vista Transit Center to the Escondido Transit Ce nter with destinations to Palomar College, San Marcos Civic Center, Mission Hills High Sc hool, San Marcos Middle School, Vista Transit Center Escondido Transit Center, Arc Enterprises, and DMV. There are 33 stops along this route. Route 305 currently operates Monday through Friday from 4:32 AM through 11:02 PM departing from the Vista Transi t Center and from 4:19 AM throug h 10:16 PM departing from the Escondido Transit Center. Weekend route schedule begins at 5:32 AM through 11:02 PM departing from Vista Transit Center and begins at 5:15 AM to 10:18 PM dep arting from the Escondido Transit Center. Route 305 travels at 30-minute headways on weekdays, an d 30-minute headways on weekends.

Route 347 runs from Cal State San Marcos to Palomar College with destina tions to Cal State University San Marcos, Palomar College, Restaurant Row, Cal Sta t e S a n M a r c o s S P R I N T E R Station, and Edwards Cinemas. There are 24 stops along this rou te. Route 347 currently operates Monday through Friday from 5:20 A M through 7:12 PM departing fr om the CSUSM Sprinter Station and from 5:45 AM through 7:36 PM departing from Palomar College Transit Center.

Saturday route schedule begins at 7:51 AM through 7:12 PM depar ting from CSUSM Sprinter Station and begins at 7:14 AM to 6:35 PM departing from Palomar College Transit Center. Route 347 does not operate on Sundays. Route 305 travels at 30-minute headways on weekdays, and 60- minute headways on Saturdays.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
44 12.3 Bicycle Conditions
There are currently Class II bik e lanes in each direction of tr avel on E. Barham Drive, Woodland Parkway, and La Moree Road in the vicinity of the Project site, consistent with the City of San Marcos Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, September 2012.

Table 12–1 summarizes the existing and future bicycle facility classifications along E. Barham Drive within the study area.

TABLE 12–1

BICYCLE MOBILITY
Street Segment Existing Condi tion Future Classification a Barham Drive
Woodland Parkway to Project Driveway (West) Class II Bicycle La ne Class II Bicycle Lane Project Driveway (West) to Project Driveway
(East) Class II Bicycle Lane Class II Bicycle Lane
Project Driveway (East) to La Moree Road Class II Bicycle Lane Class II Bicycle Lane East of La Moree Road Class II Bicycle Lane Class II Bicycle La ne Source: City of San Marcos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
45 13.0 CONCLUSIONS
The preceding Transportation Impact Analysis & Local Transporta tion Analysis were prepared to determine and evaluate the potential impacts and effects to the local roadway system due to the proposed Hallamark Barham Specifc Plan Project.

13.1 VMT Analysis
Based on the VMT analysis presented above in Section 6 , a significant transportation impact is calculated. The results of the P roject VMT comparison indicate that the Project would exceed the significance threshold by 21.66%. This would require mitigation of 21.66% or more to reduce the VMT impact to less-than-significant. Since the maximum feasible total VMT reduction combining all measures is 15%, the Project’s impact is considered significant and unmitigated.

Using the residential densities determined for TAZ 1026 and for the Project site, the corresponding VMT reductions were calculated using the CAPCOA methodology for LUT 1. The Project’s net- VMT reduction associated with LUT-1 is calculated to be 6.2%.

13.2 Local Mobility Analysis
The Local Mobility Analysis conducted shows that all study inte rsections and street segments are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS D or better with the ad dition of Project traffic, with the exception of Rancheros Drive / SR-78 WB Ramps which is calculat ed to operate at LOS F under both “without” and “with Projec t” conditions. A substantial LOS related effect is identified at this intersection since the Project-related increase in delay exceeds the LOS standard threshold maximum of 2.0 seconds.

The existing traffic conditions at this location are already su bstandard and warrant a traffic signal.

Provision of a traffic signal al one would be sufficient to redu ce the Project’s LOS related effect to less than substantial.

The following measure would impr ove operations at the intersect ion and reduce the Project’s LOS related effect to less than substantial:

Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project Developer shall pay the local and regional PFF development fees ass essed to address the impact to the City of San Marcos’ SR 78 Interchanges.

The Project site is currently zone d MU-3, which is intended to support a job-based mixed-use area combining a variety of co mmercial and office uses. The Project will result in reduced traffic as compared to the current MU-3 zoning considered in the CIP. Ther efore, no additional payment is required based on the proposed zone change.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan
N:\3293\Report\3293.TIA_May 2021_clean.docx
46 A comparison of the Project’s t rip generation calculations and trip generation calculations for a conceptual development plan bas ed on the MU-3 zoning is shown b elow in Table 13-1. As shown, the Project is calculated to generate approximately 4,200 fewer ADT as compared to the land uses assumed in the General Plan.

TABLE 13–1

TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Land Use a Quantity
Daily Trip Ends (ADT)

Rate Volume
Proposed Project
Multi-family Residential (6- 20 DU/acre) 151 DU 8 /DU 1,208 Existing Zoning
Office
(Large Commercial Office (more than 100,000 SF) 275.067 KSF 17 /KSF 4,676 Retail (Specialty Retail / Strip Commercial) 18.344 KSF 40 /KSF 734 Total 5,410
Footnotes:
a. Rates are based on SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002.

It should be noted that interchange improvements would be locat ed within the jurisdiction and control of the State of California (Caltrans), and neither the Developer nor the City of San Marcos can assure that Caltrans will permit the improvement to be made . Based on regional standards of practice, the near-term direct project impacts at this location would be considered significant and unavoidable for the purposes of CEQA. However, inter-jurisdicti onal coordination would be expected to occur to permit the implementation of this mitigation measure.

Additionally, the northbound left-turn movements out of the Project’s western and eastern driveways are calculated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. A s ubstantial LOS related effect is identified at these approaches due to the deficient LOS E. It s hould be noted that all other movements operate acceptably, including the northbound right-tu rns out of the site and the westbound left-turns into the site. The substantial effect is only for the outbound left-turns during the PM peak hour. It is recommended t hat the Project restrict left- turns out of both the western and eastern driveways between the hours of 4 PM and 6 PM in order t o improve operations at the intersections and reduce the Project’s LOS related effect to less than substantial.

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

HALLMARK BARHAM SPECIFIC PLAN
San Marcos, California
May 10, 2021
LLG Ref. 3-20-3293

LI NS COTT
LAW &

GREENS PAN
engineers
Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92111
858.300.8800 T
858.300.8810 F
www.llgengineers.com

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX A

INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY SEGMENT MANUAL COUNT
SHEETS
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 7:00 0 0 0 7 28 0 13 0 15 0 111 6 180
7:15 0 0 0 5 34 0 10 0 18 0 126 7 200
7:30 0 0 0 10 55 0 9 0 16 0 135 7 232
7:45 0 0 0 11 68 0 11 0 22 0 139 7 258
8:00 0 0 0 4 71 0 9 0 19 0 111 8 222
8:15 0 0 0 6 35 0 8 0 25 0 104 8 186
8:30 0 0 0 11 47 0 13 0 21 0 107 12 211
8:45 0 0 0 1 27 0 9 0 15 0 110 11 173
Total 0 0 0 55 365 0 82 0 151 0 943 66 1662
Approach% - - - 13.1 86.9 - 35.2 - 64.8 - 93.5 6.5
Total% - - - 3.3 22.0 - 4.9 - 9.1 - 56.7 4.0
AM Intersection Peak Hour:

Volume - - - 30 228 - 39 - 75 - 511 29 912 Approach% - - - 11.6 88.4 - 34.2 - 65.8 - 94.6 5.4 Total% - - - 3.3 25.0 - 4.3 - 8.2 - 56.0 3.2 PHF #DIV/0! 0.82 0.86 0.92 0.00
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 16:00 0 0 0 23 117 0 21 0 22 0 230 11 424
16:15 0 0 0 24 115 0 13 0 22 0 251 18 443
16:30 0 0 0 16 97 0 11 0 12 0 221 12 369
16:45 0 0 0 26 93 0 19 0 14 0 208 21 381
17:00 0 0 0 16 105 0 13 0 16 0 237 13 400
17:15 0 0 0 20 81 0 5 0 17 0 198 18 339
17:30 0 0 0 30 49 0 6 0 12 0 177 15 289
17:45 0 0 0 16 49 0 8 0 12 0 139 9 233
Total 0 0 0 171 706 0 96 0 127 0 1661 117 2878
Approach% - - - 19.5 80.5 - 43.0 - 57.0 - 93.4 6.6
Total% - - - 5.9 24.5 - 3.3 - 4.4 - 57.7 4.1
PM Intersection Peak Hour:

Volume - - - 89 422 - 64 - 70 - 910 62 1,617 Approach% - - - 17.4 82.6 - 47.8 - 52.2 - 93.6 6.4 Total% - - - 5.5 26.1 - 4.0 - 4.3 - 56.3 3.8 PHF #DIV/0! 0.91 0.78 0.90 0.00
16:00 to 17:00
#01 ITM-20-046-01
La Moree Road & Barham Drive LLG Ref. 3-20-3293
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Barham Residental
-
Southbound
Barham Drive
Southbound
Westbound
Barham Drive
Northbound
La Moree Road
Eastbound
Barham Drive
07:15 to 08:15
AM
Wednesday, November 4, 2020
PM
- Barham Drive La Moree Road
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Vehicle Count ■_I------
C 1111
I I
I I
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 7:00 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 8
B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
17:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 6
0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 1
1 0
#01 ITM-20-046-01
La Moree Road & Barham Drive LLG Ref. 3-20-3293
0 0 0 1 0 1
Ped
0 0 0 0 0
AM
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 Barham Residental
Ped Ped Ped Ped
0 0
Ped
0 Barham Drive
Southbound
0 0
0 0
0 0
-
0 La Moree Road
Northbound
Ped
0 0
1 0
Westbound
Ped
0 0
2 1
0 2
1 Barham Drive
Eastbound
Ped
0 0
0 Totals
0 Ped
0 1
00 0
0 TotalsSouthbound Westbound Northbound
0 3
0 0 7 0
0 0
00 7
0 0
3 Eastbound
0 PM
- Barham Drive La Moree Road Barham Drive
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0
4 Intersection Turning Movement - Bicycle & Pedestrian Count Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | ■_I------
I _J _J I _J
I _J _J I _J
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | La Moree Road & Barham Drive LLG Ref. 3-20-3293
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 Barham Residental
N
Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Summary
#01 ITM-20-046-01
0 / 0
PM: 0 910 62 2
AM: 0 511 29 2 Time Period
AM = 07:15 to 08:15
PM = 16:00 to 17:00
0 / 0
AM: 30 228 0 2
PM: 89 422 0 3
-
AM: 0 0 0 0
PM: 0 0 0 0
0 / 0 Barham Drive
Barham Drive 7 / 4
La Moree Road
AM: 39 0 75 4
PM: 64 0 70 1
■I
' I
I
I
I
I
-' : I
.... :

I
-,. :

J J ~-----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
itr
I I
@ ~
°-1,0
I t....

I
. ._
I
I
:.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 7:00 157 0 12 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 513
7:15 120 0 3 0 261 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 575
7:30 94 0 5 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 496
7:45 85 0 7 0 176 0 0 0 0 0 169 0 437
8:00 119 0 5 0 218 0 0 0 0 9 118 0 469
8:15 119 0 3 0 256 0 0 0 0 3 108 0 489
8:30 87 0 1 0 228 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 451
8:45 76 0 4 0 164 0 0 0 0 3 70 0 317
Total 857 0 40 0 1788 0 0 0 0 15 1047 0 3747
Approach% 95.5 - 4.5 - 100.0 - - - - 1.4 98.6 -
Total% 22.9 - 1.1 - 47.7 - - - - 0.4 27.9 -
AM Intersection Peak Hour:

Volume 456 - 27 - 922 - - - - - 616 - 2,021 Approach% 94.4 - 5.6 - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - Total% 22.6 - 1.3 - 45.6 - - - - - 30.5 - PHF 0.71 0.88 #DIV/0! 0.81 0.88
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 16:00 51 0 3 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 266 0 453
16:15 75 0 1 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 259 0 451
16:30 78 0 6 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 247 0 473
16:45 50 0 2 0 185 0 0 0 0 0 268 0 505
17:00 54 0 2 0 187 0 0 0 0 0 264 0 507
17:15 44 0 5 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 231 0 470
17:30 63 0 15 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 192 0 430
17:45 51 0 3 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 244 0 451
Total 466 0 37 0 1266 0 0 0 0 0 1971 0 3740
Approach% 92.6 - 7.4 - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 -
Total% 12.5 - 1.0 - 33.9 - - - - - 52.7 -
PM Intersection Peak Hour:

Volume 226 - 15 - 704 - - - - - 1,010 - 1,955 Approach% 93.8 - 6.2 - 100.0 - - - - - 100.0 - Total% 11.6 - 0.8 - 36.0 - - - - - 51.7 - PHF 0.72 0.93 #DIV/0! 0.94 0.96
Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Vehicle Count AM
Thursday, September 20, 2018
PM
SR-78 Eastbound Off Ramp East Barham Drive South Warplex Avenue Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] #01 ITM-18-129-01
SR-78 EB Off Ramp & E. Barham Drive & S. Warplex Avenue LLG Ref. 3-18-2835 Westbound Northbound Eastbound
San Marcos
SR-78 Eastbound Off Ramp
Southbound
East Barham Drive
Southbound
Westbound
East Barham Drive
Northbound
South Warplex Avenue
Eastbound
East Barham Drive
07:00 to 08:00
16:30 to 17:30
■_I------
C 1111
I I
I I
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] Intersection Turning Movement - Bicycle & Pedestrian Count 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
41 PM
SR-78 Eastbound Off Ramp East Barham Drive South Warplex Avenue East Barham Drive 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 TotalsSouthbound Westbound Northbound
1 3
1 0 0 6
1 3
00 7
0 0
0 Eastbound
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 East Barham Drive
Eastbound
Ped
0 2
0 Totals
0 Ped
2 0
00 0
0 Ped
0 0
Ped
0 East Barham Drive
Southbound
0 0
0 0
1 0
SR-78 Eastbound Off Ramp
0 South Warplex Avenue
Northbound
Ped
0 0
0 0
Westbound
Ped
0 0 0 2 2
Ped
0 0 0 0 0
AM
Thursday, September 20, 2018 San Marcos
Ped Ped Ped
0 0 3
0 0 0 1 1
0 0
0 0
#01 ITM-18-129-01
SR-78 EB Off Ramp & E. Barham Drive & S. Warplex Avenue LLG Ref. 3-18-2835 1 ■.____I __ _______.____________,
I I I I j
I _J _J I._J _J
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

East Barham Drive 0 / 0
South Warplex Avenue
AM: 0 0 0 0
PM: 0 0 0 0
SR-78 Eastbound Off Ramp
AM: 0 27 0 456
PM: 0 15 0 226
1 / 1 East Barham Drive
6 / 3
PM: 0 1010 0 0
AM: 0 616 0 0
Time Period
AM = 07:00 to 08:00
PM = 16:30 to 17:30
0 / 0
AM: 0 922 0 0
PM: 0 704 0 0
Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Summary
#01 ITM-18-129-01
SR-78 EB Off Ramp & E. Barham Drive & S. Warplex Avenue LLG Ref. 3-18-2835 Thursday, September 20, 2018 San Marcos
N
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] ■I I
~ lJ_~----- Jt
.
- - -
------,--• r -~
,t..

I
I
:+-
I
:r I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@ ~
---
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 7:00 5 106 142 20 28 4 22 49 22 18 14 66 496
7:15 1 126 163 12 50 2 24 86 13 15 15 69 576
7:30 3 118 135 19 43 8 28 65 6 32 15 69 541
7:45 6 122 86 28 47 0 29 38 5 19 26 60 466
8:00 4 94 123 18 66 2 55 30 11 15 22 49 489
8:15 3 122 145 15 50 2 42 33 14 12 17 70 525
8:30 3 103 136 27 79 4 40 51 14 18 20 88 583
8:45 5 105 110 17 53 2 49 32 13 14 22 83 505
Total 30 896 1040 156 416 24 289 384 98 143 151 554 4181 Approach% 1.5 45.6 52.9 26.2 69.8 4.0 37.5 49.8 12.7 16.9 17.8 65.3 Total% 0.7 21.4 24.9 3.7 9.9 0.6 6.9 9.2 2.3 3.4 3.6 13.3 AM Intersection Peak Hour:

Volume 15 424 514 77 248 10 186 146 52 59 81 290 2,102 Approach% 1.6 44.5 53.9 23.0 74.0 3.0 48.4 38.0 13.5 13.7 18.8 67.4 Total% 0.7 20.2 24.5 3.7 11.8 0.5 8.8 6.9 2.5 2.8 3.9 13.8 PHF 0.88 0.76 0.91 0.85 0.90
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 16:00 11 68 52 20 50 8 44 106 14 64 33 73 543
16:15 6 68 94 15 43 5 35 88 23 46 43 70 536
16:30 10 95 94 20 44 10 36 74 16 56 33 103 591
16:45 2 79 83 7 31 2 41 106 16 40 36 108 551
17:00 2 84 90 15 42 11 31 78 9 43 35 102 542
17:15 4 95 119 17 36 5 42 92 10 30 30 126 606
17:30 5 101 108 12 28 4 43 99 11 48 48 85 592
17:45 3 84 147 9 27 9 26 112 16 38 40 93 604
Total 43 674 787 115 301 54 298 755 115 365 298 760 4565 Approach% 2.9 44.8 52.3 24.5 64.0 11.5 25.5 64.6 9.8 25.7 20.9 53.4 Total% 0.9 14.8 17.2 2.5 6.6 1.2 6.5 16.5 2.5 8.0 6.5 16.6 PM Intersection Peak Hour:

Volume 14 364 464 53 133 29 142 381 46 159 153 406 2,344 Approach% 1.7 43.2 55.1 24.7 61.9 13.5 25.0 67.0 8.1 22.1 21.3 56.5 Total% 0.6 15.5 19.8 2.3 5.7 1.2 6.1 16.3 2.0 6.8 6.5 17.3 PHF 0.90 0.79 0.92 0.97 0.97
Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Vehicle Count AM
Thursday, September 20, 2018
PM
Woodland Parkway Rancheros Drive Woodland Parkway
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] #03 ITM-18-129-03
Woodland Parkway & Rancheros Drive LLG Ref. 3-18-2835
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
San Marcos
Woodland Parkway
Southbound
Rancheros Drive
Southbound
Westbound
Rancheros Drive
Northbound
Woodland Parkway
Eastbound
Rancheros Drive
08:00 to 09:00
17:00 to 18:00
■_I------
C 1111
I I
I I
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] Intersection Turning Movement - Bicycle & Pedestrian Count 2 1 0 0
1 0 0
2715
PM
Woodland Parkway Rancheros Drive Woodland Parkway Rancheros Drive 1 1 0 0
1 3 0 0
1 2 1 1
4 TotalsSouthbound Westbound Northbound
3 4
15 10 0 0
0 0
21 25
1 0
0 Eastbound
1 1
0 0
0 3
2 Rancheros Drive
Eastbound
Ped
0 0
0 Totals
2 Ped
5 4
20 0
0 Ped
4 1
Ped
3 Rancheros Drive
Southbound
1 3
4 1
0 1
Woodland Parkway
1 Woodland Parkway
Northbound
Ped
0 0
0 0
Westbound
Ped
1 1 0 0 2
Ped
4 0 0 0 4
AM
Thursday, September 20, 2018 San Marcos
Ped Ped Ped
10 1 1
1 1 0 0 2
4 5
5 3
#03 ITM-18-129-03
Woodland Parkway & Rancheros Drive LLG Ref. 3-18-2835
2 ■.____I __ _______.____________,
I I I I j
I _J _J I._J _J
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

Rancheros Drive 0 / 1
Woodland Parkway
AM: 186 146 52 0
PM: 142 381 46 0
Woodland Parkway
AM: 0 514 424 15
PM: 0 464 364 14
15 / 15 Rancheros Drive
0 / 1
PM: 159 153 406 0
AM: 59 81 290 1
Time Period
AM = 08:00 to 09:00
PM = 17:00 to 18:00
10 / 10
AM: 77 248 10 0
PM: 53 133 29 0
Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Summary
#03 ITM-18-129-03
Woodland Parkway & Rancheros Drive LLG Ref. 3-18-2835
Thursday, September 20, 2018 San Marcos
N
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] ■I I
~ lJ_~----- Jt
.
- - -
------,--• r -~
,t..

I
I
:+-
I
:r I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@ ~
---
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 7:00 68 0 167 0 123 39 0 0 0 98 200 0 695
7:15 89 0 147 0 103 67 0 0 0 114 226 0 746
7:30 79 0 128 0 113 94 0 0 0 82 226 0 722
7:45 75 0 159 0 153 88 0 0 0 21 227 0 723
8:00 65 0 113 0 146 52 0 0 0 48 247 0 671
8:15 62 0 145 0 112 55 0 0 0 72 223 0 669
8:30 68 0 171 0 149 74 0 0 0 57 199 0 718
8:45 70 0 138 0 130 53 0 0 0 61 180 0 632
Total 576 0 1168 0 1029 522 0 0 0 553 1728 0 5576
Approach% 33.0 - 67.0 - 66.3 33.7 - - - 24.2 75.8 -
Total% 10.3 - 20.9 - 18.5 9.4 - - - 9.9 31.0 -
AM Intersection Peak Hour:

Volume 311 - 601 - 492 288 - - - 315 879 - 2,886 Approach% 34.1 - 65.9 - 63.1 36.9 - - - 26.4 73.6 - Total% 10.8 - 20.8 - 17.0 10.0 - - - 10.9 30.5 - PHF 0.97 0.81 #DIV/0! 0.88 0.97
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 16:00 129 0 58 0 83 82 0 0 0 112 218 0 682
16:15 92 0 65 0 64 68 0 0 0 121 249 0 659
16:30 131 0 73 0 101 65 0 0 0 92 238 0 700
16:45 121 0 90 0 95 75 0 0 0 139 237 0 757
17:00 118 0 85 0 105 78 0 0 0 69 284 0 739
17:15 144 0 93 0 83 102 0 0 0 94 260 0 776
17:30 107 0 88 0 75 111 0 0 0 94 215 0 690
17:45 114 0 85 0 70 57 0 0 0 127 212 0 665
Total 956 0 637 0 676 638 0 0 0 848 1913 0 5668
Approach% 60.0 - 40.0 - 51.4 48.6 - - - 30.7 69.3 -
Total% 16.9 - 11.2 - 11.9 11.3 - - - 15.0 33.8 -
PM Intersection Peak Hour:

Volume 514 - 341 - 384 320 - - - 394 1,019 - 2,972 Approach% 60.1 - 39.9 - 54.5 45.5 - - - 27.9 72.1 - Total% 17.3 - 11.5 - 12.9 10.8 - - - 13.3 34.3 - PHF 0.90 0.95 #DIV/0! 0.94 0.96
16:30 to 17:30
#04 ITM-18-129-04
Woodland Parkway & East Barham Drive LLG Ref. 3-18-2835 Westbound Northbound Eastbound
San Marcos
Woodland Parkway
Southbound
East Barham Drive
Southbound
Westbound
East Barham Drive
Northbound
Woodland Parkway
Eastbound
East Barham Drive
07:00 to 08:00
AM
Thursday, September 20, 2018
PM
Woodland Parkway East Barham Drive Woodland Parkway
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Vehicle Count ■_I------
C 1111
I I
I I
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0
0 6 0 0 6
3 1
0 1
#04 ITM-18-129-04
Woodland Parkway & East Barham Drive LLG Ref. 3-18-2835 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ped
0 0 0 0 0
AM
Thursday, September 20, 2018 San Marcos
Ped Ped Ped Ped
1 1
Ped
2 East Barham Drive
Southbound
0 1
1 1
0 1
Woodland Parkway
0 Woodland Parkway
Northbound
Ped
0 0
0 0
Westbound
Ped
0 3
0 0
4 1
3 East Barham Drive
Eastbound
Ped
0 0
0 Totals
0 Ped
4 5
21 0
1 TotalsSouthbound Westbound Northbound
2 2
6 11 0 2
0 0
20 19
0 0
0 Eastbound
0 PM
Woodland Parkway East Barham Drive Woodland Parkway East Barham Drive 0 0 0 0
0 3 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0
12 Intersection Turning Movement - Bicycle & Pedestrian Count Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] ■.____I __ _______.____________,
I I I I j
I _J _J I._J _J
Location: File Name:

Intersection: Project:

Date of Count:

Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] Woodland Parkway & East Barham Drive LLG Ref. 3-18-2835 Thursday, September 20, 2018 San Marcos
N
Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Summary
#04 ITM-18-129-04
2 / 0
PM: 394 1019 0 0
AM: 315 879 0 0
Time Period
AM = 07:00 to 08:00
PM = 16:30 to 17:30
11 / 12
AM: 0 492 288 0
PM: 0 384 320 0
Woodland Parkway
AM: 0 601 0 311
PM: 0 341 0 514
6 / 0 East Barham Drive
East Barham Drive 0 / 0
Woodland Parkway
AM: 0 0 0 0
PM: 0 0 0 0
■I I
~ lJ_~----- Jt
.
- - -
------,--• r -~
,t..

I
I
:+-
I
:r I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@ ~
---
Location: E. Barham Drive, between Woodland Parkway and La Moree Road Date: Thursday, September 20, 2018 Total Daily Volume: Description: Total Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 39 19 45 42 115 360 926 1936 2162 1276 724 765 824 781 921 1271 1419 1587 1241 381 274 207 116 71 12 7 6 6 13 51 148 377 581 412 208 191 190 220 194 296 310 392 365 99 79 63 29 28 11 3 7 4 29 68 169 475 513 367 187 190 191 197 243 235 389 435 295 108 73 64 34 14 7 7 20 15 27 119 270 570 549 297 153 220 226 199 236 401 410 381 352 93 64 55 24 15 9 2 12 17 46 122 339 514 519 200 176 164 217 165 248 339 310 379 229 81 58 25 29 14 Date: Thursday, September 20, 2018 Total Daily Volume: Description: Eastbound Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 14 3 12 9 22 68 234 684 714 372 232 269 291 259 358 459 593 586 289 118 78 73 19 24 7 1 0 1 4 6 35 147 208 106 84 70 64 72 78 94 155 163 82 30 21 23 5 11 3 0 0 1 7 20 43 145 163 98 48 65 67 58 88 90 123 152 82 31 20 17 5 6 2 1 10 3 4 16 56 206 180 97 48 72 89 68 93 143 168 155 74 28 19 20 3 3 2 1 2 4 7 26 100 186 163 71 52 62 71 61 99 132 147 116 51 29 18 13 6 4 Date: Thursday, September 20, 2018 Total Daily Volume: Description: Westbound Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 25 16 33 33 93 292 692 1252 1448 904 492 496 533 522 563 812 826 1001 952 263 196 134 97 47 5 6 6 5 9 45 113 230 373 306 124 121 126 148 116 202 155 229 283 69 58 40 24 17 8 3 7 3 22 48 126 330 350 269 139 125 124 139 155 145 266 283 213 77 53 47 29 8 5 6 10 12 23 103 214 364 369 200 105 148 137 131 143 258 242 226 278 65 45 35 21 12 7 1 10 13 39 96 239 328 356 129 124 102 146 104 149 207 163 263 178 52 40 12 23 10 11722
Report Generated by "Count Data" all rights reserved
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92111
Average Daily Traffic
17502
5780
Location: E. Barham Drive, West of Meyers Ave
Date: Thursday, September 20, 2018 Total Daily Volume: Description: Total Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 41 9 16 12 57 170 628 1306 1359 773 526 585 613 552 821 1235 1454 1309 691 330 226 137 94 41 12 3 1 3 5 23 71 283 355 241 142 131 176 130 170 256 345 393 203 112 65 45 29 15 10 1 5 1 7 34 94 303 352 198 120 141 134 149 174 293 362 337 207 65 63 37 18 10 9 1 7 2 12 41 177 345 328 178 124 153 156 128 245 352 366 287 143 80 51 28 26 12 10 4 3 6 33 72 286 375 324 156 140 160 147 145 232 334 381 292 138 73 47 27 21 4 Date: Thursday, September 20, 2018 Total Daily Volume: Description: Eastbound Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 11 6 2 6 33 100 383 638 576 380 273 282 265 262 387 663 819 694 332 155 115 56 45 14 2 2 1 1 2 8 46 137 170 132 70 63 83 65 70 158 211 182 91 64 32 20 15 6 4 1 0 1 1 19 56 171 144 92 62 65 64 73 77 169 207 189 95 31 36 14 7 3 2 1 0 0 8 24 116 155 130 85 68 82 57 67 119 166 201 166 75 36 27 13 15 4 3 2 1 4 22 49 165 175 132 71 73 72 61 57 121 170 200 157 71 24 20 9 8 1 Date: Thursday, September 20, 2018 Total Daily Volume: Description: Westbound Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 30 3 14 6 24 70 245 668 783 393 253 303 348 290 434 572 635 615 359 175 111 81 49 27 10 1 0 2 3 15 25 146 185 109 72 68 93 65 100 98 134 211 112 48 33 25 14 9 6 0 5 0 6 15 38 132 208 106 58 76 70 76 97 124 155 148 112 34 27 23 11 7 7 0 7 2 4 17 61 190 198 93 56 71 99 61 126 186 165 121 68 44 24 15 11 8 7 2 2 2 11 23 121 200 192 85 67 88 86 88 111 164 181 135 67 49 27 18 13 3 6488
Report Generated by "Count Data" all rights reserved
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92111
Average Daily Traffic
12985
6497
Location: Barham Drive, between Meyers Avenue and W. Mission Road Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 Total Daily Volume: Description: Total Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 16 11 10 15 20 82 343 748 658 438 448 472 487 597 739 802 845 792 487 246 160 106 60 25 4 6 4 1 0 12 65 165 198 116 104 112 131 117 154 183 211 241 142 85 36 20 21 5 2 2 2 3 6 16 86 177 174 106 121 116 107 124 188 230 225 197 135 67 56 26 13 4 7 1 2 7 5 31 80 190 145 116 117 126 132 168 174 199 214 196 120 51 37 30 12 4 3 2 2 4 9 23 112 216 141 100 106 118 117 188 223 190 195 158 90 43 31 30 14 12 Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 Total Daily Volume: Description: Eastbound Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 3 5 5 4 8 38 163 236 219 181 192 234 212 265 344 376 382 357 225 104 55 40 19 7 0 4 2 1 0 5 27 55 54 41 45 49 55 42 62 93 113 108 68 37 11 9 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 10 45 60 56 43 61 62 49 61 74 101 114 79 52 25 20 8 4 2 3 0 1 1 4 15 38 73 60 51 58 69 60 84 98 90 90 106 62 22 16 10 4 0 0 1 2 1 4 8 53 48 49 46 28 54 48 78 110 92 65 64 43 20 8 13 4 4 Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 Total Daily Volume: Description: Westbound Volume 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 13 6 5 11 12 44 180 512 439 257 256 238 275 332 395 426 463 435 262 142 105 66 41 18 4 2 2 0 0 7 38 110 144 75 59 63 76 75 92 90 98 133 74 48 25 11 14 4 2 2 2 2 6 6 41 117 118 63 60 54 58 63 114 129 111 118 83 42 36 18 9 2 4 1 1 6 1 16 42 117 85 65 59 57 72 84 76 109 124 90 58 29 21 20 8 4 3 1 0 3 5 15 59 168 92 54 78 64 69 110 113 98 130 94 47 23 23 17 10 8 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92111
Average Daily Traffic
Report Generated by "Count Data" all rights reserved
8607
3674
4933

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX B

CITY OF SAN MARCOS ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION TABLE

LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
Existing Roadway Classifications / Standards
Prime Arterial 7 to 8 lanes 29,200 40,800 58,300 64,200 70,000 Prime Arterial 6 lanes 25,000 35,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 Major Arterial 5 lanes 18,000 25,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Major Arterial 4 lanes 15,000 21,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Secondary Arterial 5 lanes 12,500 17,500 25,000 31,300 37,500 Secondary Arterial 4 lanes 10,000 14,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Secondary Arterial 3 lanes 7,500 10,500 15,000 18,000 22,500 Collector 2 lanes plus TWLTL 5,000 7,000 10,000 13,000 15,000 Collector 2 lanes 2,500 3,500 5,000 6,500 8,000
General Plan Complete Street Typology Standards
Arterial 8 lanes 29,200 40,800 58,300 64,200 70,000
Arterial 6 lanes 25,000 35,000 50,000 55,000 60,000
Arterial with Class II or
Class III Bike Lanes 4 lanes 15,000 21,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Arterial with enhanced
Bike facilities 4 lanes 15,000 21,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Multi-Way Boulevard 4 lanes for through trips, two
lanes for local serving trips 1 16,800 25,200 31,500 37,800 42,000 Industrial Collector 4 lanes 10,000 14,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Collector & Main Street 2 lanes plus TWLTL 5,000 7,000 10,000 13,000 15,000 Collector & Main Street 2 lanes 2 2,500 3,000 5,000 6,500 8,000 Freeway Mixed-Flow Lane 3 - - 1,760 1,980 2,200
Freeway HOV Lanes 3 - - 1,440 1,620 1,800
Note: These are general capacities for planning purposes. Specific operational characteristics, such as signal coordination, can enhance operations significantly.

1. LOS thresholds were calculated based on V/C ratios of the daily threshold volumes for the corresponding roadway classification. Multi-way boulevard capacity assumes a similar capacity as a 4-lane arterial plus an additional 1,000 ADT capacity per lane for the local service roadway.

2. With fronting commercial or residential property

3. Per lane capacities presented.

Source: SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, 2000.

Table 3.16-2
Daily Roadway Segment Capacity
Street Typology Typical Lane Configuration
Vehicular Level of Service
WW
ooooddllaanndd PPkkww
yy
LLaa MM
oorreeee RRdd WW
EE BB aa rrhh aamm DDrr
DDeesscc aannssoo AAvvee
E Mission RdE Mission Rd
W Mission RdW Mission Rd
BB oo rrddeenn RRdd
SS aa nn EElliijjoo RR dd
Fulton RdFulton Rd
Las Flores DrLas Flores Dr
Montiel RdMontiel Rd
SSmm
iillaaxx
RRdd
GGrraanndd AAvvee
DD ii ss cc oo vv ee rr yy SS tt
RRoossee RRaanncchh RRdd
El Norte PkwyEl Norte Pkwy
BB oo rr ddee nn RR dd
EEllffiinn FFoorreesstt RRdd
Olive StOlive St
SS SSaannttaa FFee AAvvee
NN
LLaass PPoossaass RRdd
Vineyard RdVineyard Rd
NN TTww
iinn OOaakkss VVaalllleeyy RRdd
CCrraavv ee nn RR dd
LLiinnddaa VViissttaa DDrr
WW
ooooddww
aarrdd SStt
QQ
uueesstthhaavvee nn RR dd
NNoorrddaahhll
RRdd
LLaa MM oorreeee RRdd EE
DD ee ee rr SS pp rr ii nn gg ss RR dd
WW
BBoorrddeenn RR dd
NN TTww
iinn OOaakkss VVaalllleeyy RRdd
Buena Creek RdBuena Creek Rd
SS LLaass PPoossaass RRdd
S Twin Oaks Valley RdS Twin Oaks Valley Rd
RRiicchhllaanndd RRdd
MM eellrr oo ss ee DD rr
Knoll RdKnoll Rd
Mulberry DrMulberry Dr
S Pacific StS Pacific St
CCoorroonnaaddoo HHiillllss DD
rr
S Bent AveS Bent Ave
RR oo cc kk SS pp rr iinngg ss RR dd
Knob Hill RdKnob Hill Rd
!"a$
A¸E
VViiaa VVeerraa
CCrruuzz
VV iiaa VV eerraa CCrruuzz
SSaann EElliijjoo RRdd
SSaann EElliijjoo RRdd
WW SS aa nn MM aa rr cc ooss BB llvvdd
W San Marcos BlvdW San Marcos Blvd
WW SSaann MMaarrccooss
BBllvvdd
S Rancho Santa Fe RdS Rancho Santa Fe Rd
LLaa MMiirraaddaa DDrr
LL ii nn dd aa VV iissttaa DD rr
NN TTww
iinn OOaakkss VVaalllleeyy RRdd
Mulberry DrMulberry Dr
BBeennnneetttt AAvvee
RRaanncchheerrooss RRddA¸E
A¸E
A¸E
!"a$
PalomarPalomar
CollegeCollege
Cal StateCal State
UniversityUniversity
San MarcosSan Marcos
DiscoveryDiscovery
LakeLake
Jack’sJack’s
PondPond
LakeLake
SanSan
MarcosMarcos
SouthSouth
LakeLake
CarlsbadCarlsbad
VistaVista
EscondidoEscondido
EscondidoEscondido
UnincorporatedUnincorporated
UnincorporatedUnincorporated
UnincorporatedUnincorporated
EncinitasEncinitas
SSaann MMaarrccooss CCrree ee kk
SSaann MMaarrccooss CCrreeeekk
SSaann MMaarrccooss
CCrr eeeekk
TTwwiinn OOaakkss VVaallll eeyy CCrreeeekk
AAgg uuaa HHeeddiioonnddaa CCrree ee kk
SSaann MMaa rrccooss CCrree eekk
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
!"^$
!"^$
A¸E
EncinitasEncinitas
OceansideOceanside
CarlsbadCarlsbad
VistaVista
EscondidoEscondido
VistaVista
SanSan
MarcosMarcos

MOBILITY ELEMENT
FIGURE 3-1
City of San Marcos
Roadway
Classifications
Miles

10.50.25 0
33 Path: X:\Projects\GeneralPlan\Maps\DocumentMaps\GISMaps\Fig3-1_RoadwayClassificationSystemLegend.mxd Last Updated: 12/3/2012 Roadway Classifications Street Typology*San Marcos City Limits Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Major Hydrologic Features
Creeks
Railroad
Freeway
Highway
Major Road
Minor Road
2 Lanes with Right-of-Way consistent with
County of San Diego’s General Plan
4 Lanes with Right-of-Way consistent with
County of San Diego’s General Plan
Arterial Enhanced
Complete Street
4 Lanes (Rural)
4 Lanes
4 Lanes +
Multi-Way Boulevard
6 Lanes
6 Lanes +
! ! Arterial with Class II or III Bicycle Facilities
and Sidewalks
" " Arterial with Enhanced Bicycle/Pedestrian
Facilities
! ! Multi-Way
* See the Street Design Manual for additional
street typology assignments
SOURCES OF DATA:

City of San Marcos 12/12
Every eﬀort has been made to assure the accuracy of the maps and data provided; however, some information may not be accurate or current. The City of San Marcos assumes no responsibility arising from use of this information and incorporates by reference its disclaimer regarding the lack of any warranties, whether expressed or implied, concerning the use of the same. For additional information, see the Disclaimer of the City’s website.

Page 3 ends

-=-:·.
i' I' '
_,,I ·1 ··.>
:\:. ,,. ,· · .. :·:·.
' '
' ····- ··-..:·-.. ... :,I
···•.·.
•
•
• •
0 D
-
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
\\
{
\, '\
,-.. -....... , ~> ...
',' ... ~.
'

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX C
SANDAG SERIES 13 YEAR 2020 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL RESULTS
Scenario ID 991
VMT Query Type Description VMT
Regionwide                  84,682,067 1Z one
Clip 1 20 0 ‐
Clip 2 30 0 ‐
40 0 ‐
Scenario ID Residents Total Trips Person Miles of
Travel
Vehicle Miles of
Travel
VMT per
Resident
Regionwide 991 3,435,715 12, 302,411 77,559,665 56,353,219 16.4 Jurisdiction City of San Marco 991 98,877 348,681 2,022,016 1,442,511 14.6 Site TAZ 1026 991 2,279 9,084 54,398 41,439 18.2
Scenario ID Employees Total Trips Person Miles of
Travel
Vehicle Miles of
Travel
VMT per
Employee
Regionwide 991 1,444,771               4,995,914                41,235,140            35,989,589            24.9 Jurisdiction City of San Marco 991 41,109                    145,168                   1,097,998               938,226                  22.8 Site TAZ 1026 991 132                          477                          3,162                       2,598                       19.7 Report Generated:   10/30/20
Geography
Geography
Gross VMT
SB‐743 VMT
VMT per Resident
VMT per Employee
Vehicle Miles of Travel Report
Geography
Distribution VMT
Aggregate VMT
Barham Drive  ‐  2020rc_turnprh  ‐  TAZ 1026
I
I

CSANDAG
Table A
Barham Residential VMT/Resident Comparison
Source VMT/Resident
Regional Mean
85%
Threshold
VMT/Resident
Project TAZ Impact?
SANDAG Series 13 TAZ 1026
Year 2020 VMT Model 17.6 14.96 18.2 Yes

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX D

EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM
1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\1. Existing AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 634 950 0 470 28
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 634 950 0 470 28
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 689 1033 0 511 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 022022
Cap, veh/h 0 1082 1082 0 546 486
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 689 1033 0 511 30
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 19.2 40.7 0.0 21.8 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 19.2 40.7 0.0 21.8 1.0
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1082 1082 0 546 486
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.64 0.96 0.00 0.94 0.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1112 1112 0 558 497
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.0 15.5 0.0 26.4 19.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.2 17.0 0.0 23.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 7.2 19.6 0.0 12.2 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.2 32.6 0.0 49.5 19.2
LnGrp LOS A B C A D B
Approach Vol, veh/h 689 1033 541
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.2 32.6 47.8
Approach LOS B C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.7 28.5 49.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.5 24.5 46.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.2 23.8 42.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.2 0.2 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.0
HCM 6th LOS C
t t
HCM 6th AWSC Existing AM
2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\1. Existing AM.syn
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh69.3
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 224 39 602 319 182 182
Future Vol, veh/h 224 39 602 319 182 182
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 243 42 654 347 198 198
Number of Lanes 1 11111
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach Left NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 0 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 2
HCM Control Delay 16 105.8 15.3

HCM LOS C F C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 182 182 224 39 602 319
LT Vol 182 0 0 0 602 0
Through Vol 0 0 224 0 0 319
RT Vol 0 182 0 39 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 198 198 243 42 654 347
Geometry Grp 777777
Degree of Util (X) 0.431 0.365 0.483 0.076 1.255 0.616
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.211 6.986 7.487 6.768 6.902 6.392 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 441 518 485 532 530 565
Service Time 5.911 4.686 5.187 4.468 4.636 4.127
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.449 0.382 0.501 0.079 1.234 0.614
HCM Control Delay 17 13.6 17 10 151.9 18.9
HCM Lane LOS C B C A F C
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 1.7 2.6 0.2 26 4.2
t .,, lt t lt .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM
3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\1. Existing AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 83 299 79 255 10 192 150 54 15 437 529 Future Volume (veh/h) 61 83 299 79 255 10 192 150 54 15 437 529 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 66 90 325 86 277 11 209 163 59 16 475 575 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 90 387 550 111 391 16 249 1200 419 34 643 625 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.02 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1787 71 1781 2583 902 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 66 90 325 86 0 288 209 110 112 16 475 575 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1858 1781 1777 1708 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 2.9 12.3 3.5 0.0 10.4 8.3 2.6 2.7 0.6 16.3 25.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 2.9 12.3 3.5 0.0 10.4 8.3 2.6 2.7 0.6 16.3 25.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 387 550 111 0 406 249 825 793 34 643 625 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.23 0.59 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.84 0.13 0.14 0.47 0.74 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 208 504 649 169 0 459 257 825 793 122 643 625 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.1 24.0 19.5 33.6 0.0 26.3 30.5 11.1 11.2 35.3 21.0 21.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.8 0.3 1.0 11.7 0.0 4.3 20.7 0.1 0.1 9.9 4.5 19.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 1.3 4.4 1.8 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.9 1.0 0.4 7.4 11.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 24.3 20.5 45.4 0.0 30.6 51.2 11.2 11.2 45.2 25.5 40.0 LnGrp LOS D C C D A C D B B D C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 481 374 431 1066
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.6 34.0 30.6 33.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.9 38.3 9.0 19.6 14.7 29.5 8.2 20.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 6.9 19.6 10.5 25.0 8.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 4.7 5.5 14.3 10.3 27.0 4.7 12.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.3
HCM 6th LOS C
__ "i tf+ "i t 7' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM
4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\1. Existing AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 320 884 497 293 316 606
Future Volume (veh/h) 320 884 497 293 316 606
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 961 540 318 343 594
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 385 1103 617 1036 576 513
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.59 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 348 961 540 318 343 594
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 19.7 44.9 28.2 9.0 16.7 33.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.7 44.9 28.2 9.0 16.7 33.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 385 1103 617 1036 576 513
V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.87 0.88 0.31 0.60 1.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 507 1400 786 1179 576 513
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.5 17.9 32.7 7.8 29.3 35.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.2 5.2 9.0 0.2 1.7 91.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.2 19.2 14.0 6.6 7.3 13.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.7 23.1 41.7 7.9 31.0 126.3
LnGrp LOS E C D A C F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1309 858 937
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.8 29.2 91.4
Approach LOS C C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 65.5 38.0 26.9 38.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 77.5 33.5 29.5 43.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 46.9 35.5 21.7 30.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.4 0.0 0.7 4.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. "i t t 'f' "iV
HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\1. Existing AM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1226 0 0 275 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1226 0 0 275 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1333 0 0 299 0 0

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1333 0 1483 667
Stage 1 - - - - 1333 -
Stage 2 - - - - 150 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 513 - 116 401
Stage 1 - - - - 211 -
Stage 2 - - - - 862 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 513 - 116 401
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 183 -
Stage 1 - - - - 211 -
Stage 2 - - - - 862 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) ---- 5 1 3-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) ---- 0-
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM
7: La Moore Dr & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\1. Existing AM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 526 30 31 235 40 77
Future Volume (veh/h) 526 30 31 235 40 77
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 572 33 34 255 43 84
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1451 84 611 1510 225 200
Arrive On Green 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 3509 197 815 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 297 308 34 255 43 84
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1835 815 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 2.3 0.6 0.9 0.4 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 2.3 2.9 0.9 0.4 1.0
Prop In Lane 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 755 780 611 1510 225 200
V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.17 0.19 0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4473 4619 2316 8946 2708 2410
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.6 7.8 8.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.3 4.3 5.0 3.6 8.3 9.5
LnGrp LOS AAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 605 289 127
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.3 3.8 9.1
Approach LOS A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 13.0 7.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.5 50.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 4.9 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.2 2.1 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.8
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\2. Existing PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1040 725 0 233 15
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1040 725 0 233 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1130 788 0 253 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 022022
Cap, veh/h 0 1196 1196 0 324 288
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.18 0.18
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1130 788 0 253 16
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 27.7 13.2 0.0 6.8 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 27.7 13.2 0.0 6.8 0.4
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1196 1196 0 324 288
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.95 0.66 0.00 0.78 0.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1229 1229 0 638 568
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 8.3 5.7 0.0 19.6 17.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 14.3 1.3 0.0 4.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 10.9 3.4 0.0 2.9 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 22.6 6.9 0.0 23.7 17.1
LnGrp LOS A C A A C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1130 788 269
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.6 6.9 23.3
Approach LOS C A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.6 13.6 36.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 33.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.7 8.8 15.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 0.5 5.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.0
HCM 6th LOS B
t t
HCM 6th AWSC Existing PM
2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\2. Existing PM.syn
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 55
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 491 77 491 206 93 217
Future Vol, veh/h 491 77 491 206 93 217
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 534 84 534 224 101 236
Number of Lanes 1 11111
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach Left NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 0 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 2
HCM Control Delay 61.9 67 15.4

HCM LOS F F C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 93 217 491 77 491 206
LT Vol 93 0 0 0 491 0
Through Vol 0 0 491 0 0 206
RT Vol 0 217 0 77 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 101 236 534 84 534 224
Geometry Grp 777777
Degree of Util (X) 0.232 0.463 1.015 0.143 1.076 0.42
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.539 7.301 7.057 6.339 7.256 6.745 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 424 498 518 569 502 533
Service Time 6.239 5.001 4.757 4.039 5.019 4.507
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.238 0.474 1.031 0.148 1.064 0.42
HCM Control Delay 13.8 16.1 70 10.1 89.1 14.3
HCM Lane LOS B C F B F B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 2.4 14.4 0.5 16.6 2.1
t .,, lt t lt .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\2. Existing PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 164 158 418 55 137 30 146 392 47 14 375 478 Future Volume (veh/h) 164 158 418 55 137 30 146 392 47 14 375 478 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 178 172 454 60 149 33 159 426 51 15 408 520 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 219 530 625 86 309 69 198 1283 153 32 576 683 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.02 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1483 328 1781 3198 381 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 178 172 454 60 0 182 159 236 241 15 408 520 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1811 1781 1777 1802 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 5.2 17.6 2.4 0.0 6.4 6.3 6.6 6.7 0.6 13.9 20.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 5.2 17.6 2.4 0.0 6.4 6.3 6.6 6.7 0.6 13.9 20.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 219 530 625 86 0 378 198 713 723 32 576 683 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.32 0.73 0.70 0.00 0.48 0.80 0.33 0.33 0.47 0.71 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 284 585 672 170 0 452 249 713 723 123 580 687 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.8 20.4 18.6 33.8 0.0 25.1 31.3 14.9 15.0 35.1 22.1 17.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.8 0.4 3.7 9.6 0.0 1.0 13.9 0.3 0.3 10.2 3.9 5.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 2.2 6.5 1.2 0.0 2.7 3.4 2.5 2.6 0.3 6.4 7.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7 20.8 22.2 43.4 0.0 26.1 45.3 15.2 15.2 45.3 26.0 22.4 LnGrp LOS D C C D A C D B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 804 242 636 943
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.7 30.4 22.7 24.3
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.8 33.5 8.0 24.9 12.5 26.7 13.4 19.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 27.5 6.9 22.6 10.1 22.4 11.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 8.7 4.4 19.6 8.3 22.1 9.0 8.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.2
HCM 6th LOS C
__ "i tf+ "i t 7' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\2. Existing PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 406 1050 396 330 529 351
Future Volume (veh/h) 406 1050 396 330 529 351
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 441 1141 430 359 446 455
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 478 1179 583 920 478 425
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.63 0.31 0.31 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 441 1141 430 359 446 455
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 21.4 51.5 18.3 10.9 21.8 23.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.4 51.5 18.3 10.9 21.8 23.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 478 1179 583 920 478 425
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.97 0.74 0.39 0.93 1.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 522 1199 583 920 478 425
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.7 15.6 27.4 10.1 31.8 32.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.3 18.5 4.9 0.3 25.4 63.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.7 24.3 8.7 6.6 12.4 7.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.0 34.1 32.3 10.4 57.2 95.9
LnGrp LOS D C C B E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1582 789 901
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.4 22.3 76.8
Approach LOS D C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 60.6 28.4 28.4 32.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 57.1 23.9 26.1 26.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 53.5 25.9 23.4 20.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.4 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. "i t t 'f' "iV
HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\2. Existing PM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1579 0 0 501 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1579 0 0 501 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1716 0 0 545 0 0

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1716 0 1989 858
Stage 1 - - - - 1716 -
Stage 2 - - - - 273 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 365 - 53 300
Stage 1 - - - - 130 -
Stage 2 - - - - 748 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 365 - 53 300
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 112 -
Stage 1 - - - - 130 -
Stage 2 - - - - 748 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) ---- 3 6 5-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) ---- 0-
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
7: La Moore Dr & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\2. Existing PM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 937 64 92 435 66 72
Future Volume (veh/h) 937 64 92 435 66 72
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1018 70 100 473 72 78
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1940 133 447 2044 214 190
Arrive On Green 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 3467 232 518 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 536 552 100 473 72 78
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1829 518 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 5.4 4.3 1.9 1.1 1.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4 5.4 9.7 1.9 1.1 1.3
Prop In Lane 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1022 1052 447 2044 214 190
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.52 0.22 0.23 0.34 0.41
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3703 3811 1229 7406 1177 1047
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.8 3.8 6.8 3.1 11.9 12.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.9 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.2 4.2 7.0 3.1 12.8 13.4
LnGrp LOS AAAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1088 573 150
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.2 3.8 13.1
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.5 21.5 8.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 61.5 61.5 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 11.7 3.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.6 5.2 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.8
HCM 6th LOS A

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX E
NEAR-TERM (YEAR 2025) WITHOUT PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 AM
1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\3. Year 2025 AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 659 987 0 488 29
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 659 987 0 488 29
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 716 1073 0 530 32
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 022022
Cap, veh/h 0 1087 1087 0 546 485
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 716 1073 0 530 32
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 20.8 45.1 0.0 23.5 1.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 20.8 45.1 0.0 23.5 1.1
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1087 1087 0 546 485
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.66 0.99 0.00 0.97 0.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1087 1087 0 546 485
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.4 16.5 0.0 27.4 19.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.5 24.1 0.0 31.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 7.9 23.4 0.0 14.2 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.8 40.5 0.0 58.7 19.7
LnGrp LOS A B D A E B
Approach Vol, veh/h 716 1073 562
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 40.5 56.5
Approach LOS B D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.0 29.0 51.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.5 24.5 46.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.8 25.5 47.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.9
HCM 6th LOS D
t t
HCM 6th AWSC Year 2025 AM
2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\3. Year 2025 AM.syn
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh79.7
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 232 41 625 332 189 189
Future Vol, veh/h 232 41 625 332 189 189
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 252 45 679 361 205 205
Number of Lanes 1 11111
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach Left NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 0 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 2
HCM Control Delay 16.7 122.8 15.9

HCM LOS C F C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 189 189 232 41 625 332
LT Vol 189 0 0 0 625 0
Through Vol 0 0 232 0 0 332
RT Vol 0 189 0 41 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 205 205 252 45 679 361
Geometry Grp 777777
Degree of Util (X) 0.45 0.382 0.505 0.081 1.317 0.649
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.297 7.071 7.615 6.895 6.981 6.471 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 438 512 477 523 523 559
Service Time 5.997 4.771 5.315 4.595 4.719 4.209
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.468 0.4 0.528 0.086 1.298 0.646
HCM Control Delay 17.6 14.1 17.8 10.2 177.2 20.4
HCM Lane LOS C B C B F C
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.3 1.8 2.8 0.3 29 4.7
t .,, lt t lt .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 AM
3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\3. Year 2025 AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 87 310 82 265 11 199 156 56 16 454 550 Future Volume (veh/h) 63 87 310 82 265 11 199 156 56 16 454 550 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 95 337 89 288 12 216 170 61 17 493 598 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 91 397 561 114 402 17 253 1192 413 36 633 617 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.02 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1783 74 1781 2589 897 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 95 337 89 0 300 216 115 116 17 493 598 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1857 1781 1777 1709 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 3.1 12.9 3.6 0.0 11.0 8.8 2.8 2.9 0.7 17.5 25.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 3.1 12.9 3.6 0.0 11.0 8.8 2.8 2.9 0.7 17.5 25.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 91 397 561 114 0 419 253 818 787 36 633 617 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.24 0.60 0.78 0.00 0.72 0.85 0.14 0.15 0.48 0.78 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 205 496 645 166 0 452 253 818 787 120 633 617 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.6 24.2 19.6 34.1 0.0 26.5 31.0 11.5 11.6 35.8 22.0 22.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.7 0.3 1.2 13.2 0.0 4.9 23.6 0.1 0.1 9.7 6.2 28.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 1.4 4.6 1.9 0.0 5.2 5.3 1.0 1.0 0.4 8.3 14.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.3 24.5 20.8 47.3 0.0 31.4 54.5 11.6 11.6 45.5 28.2 50.8 LnGrp LOS D C C D A C D B B D C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 500 389 447 1108
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 35.0 32.3 40.7
Approach LOS CDCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.0 38.5 9.2 20.2 15.0 29.5 8.3 21.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 6.9 19.6 10.5 25.0 8.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 4.9 5.6 14.9 10.8 27.0 4.8 13.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.0
HCM 6th LOS D
__ "i tf+ "i t 7' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 AM
4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\3. Year 2025 AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 330 900 510 300 320 610
Future Volume (veh/h) 330 900 510 300 320 610
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 359 978 554 326 348 598
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 397 1129 631 1025 551 490
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.60 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 359 978 554 326 348 598
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 20.3 44.9 28.8 9.5 17.4 32.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.3 44.9 28.8 9.5 17.4 32.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 397 1129 631 1025 551 490
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.87 0.88 0.32 0.63 1.22
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 525 1428 795 1164 551 490
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.2 17.0 32.3 8.1 30.7 35.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.9 4.8 9.2 0.2 2.3 116.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.5 18.9 14.3 6.7 7.7 39.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.1 21.9 41.4 8.3 33.0 152.0
LnGrp LOS E C D A C F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1337 880 946
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.8 29.2 108.2
Approach LOS C C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 67.0 36.5 27.5 39.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 79.0 32.0 30.5 44.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 46.9 34.0 22.3 30.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.8 0.0 0.7 4.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. "i t t 'f' "iV
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2025 AM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\3. Year 2025 AM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1273 0 0 286 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1273 0 0 286 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1384 0 0 311 0 0

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1384 0 1540 692
Stage 1 - - - - 1384 -
Stage 2 - - - - 156 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 491 - 106 386
Stage 1 - - - - 198 -
Stage 2 - - - - 856 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 491 - 106 386
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 172 -
Stage 1 - - - - 198 -
Stage 2 - - - - 856 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) ---- 4 9 1-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) ---- 0-
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 AM
7: La Moore Dr & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\3. Year 2025 AM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 547 31 32 244 42 80
Future Volume (veh/h) 547 31 32 244 42 80
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 595 34 35 265 46 87
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1476 84 600 1535 231 205
Arrive On Green 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 3511 195 797 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 309 320 35 265 46 87
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1835 797 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 2.5 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 2.5 3.1 0.9 0.5 1.0
Prop In Lane 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 768 793 600 1535 231 205
V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.40 0.06 0.17 0.20 0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4372 4516 2217 8745 2647 2356
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.0 4.0 5.1 3.6 8.0 8.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.3 4.3 5.1 3.6 8.4 9.6
LnGrp LOS AAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 629 300 133
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.3 3.8 9.2
Approach LOS A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 13.4 7.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.5 50.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 5.1 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.4 2.2 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.8
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 PM
1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\4. Year 2025 PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1081 753 0 242 16
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1081 753 0 242 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1175 818 0 263 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 022022
Cap, veh/h 0 1195 1195 0 333 296
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.19 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1175 818 0 263 17
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 31.5 14.5 0.0 7.3 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 31.5 14.5 0.0 7.3 0.5
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1195 1195 0 333 296
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.98 0.68 0.00 0.79 0.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1195 1195 0 621 552
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.1 6.0 0.0 20.0 17.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 22.0 1.6 0.0 4.2 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 14.6 3.9 0.0 3.1 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 31.0 7.6 0.0 24.3 17.3
LnGrp LOS A C A A C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1175 818 280
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.0 7.6 23.8
Approach LOS C A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 14.1 37.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 33.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 33.5 9.3 16.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 5.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.7
HCM 6th LOS C
t t
HCM 6th AWSC Year 2025 PM
2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\4. Year 2025 PM.syn
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh63.8
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 510 80 510 214 96 226
Future Vol, veh/h 510 80 510 214 96 226
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 554 87 554 233 104 246
Number of Lanes 1 11111
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach Left NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 0 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 2
HCM Control Delay 75 75.9 16

HCM LOS F F C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 96 226 510 80 510 214
LT Vol 96 0 0 0 510 0
Through Vol 0 0 510 0 0 214
RT Vol 0 226 0 80 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 104 246 554 87 554 233
Geometry Grp 777777
Degree of Util (X) 0.238 0.484 1.066 0.15 1.113 0.435
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.628 7.388 7.147 6.429 7.423 6.91 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 418 491 510 561 493 523
Service Time 6.328 5.088 4.847 4.129 5.123 4.61
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.249 0.501 1.086 0.155 1.124 0.446
HCM Control Delay 14 16.8 85.1 10.3 101.6 14.8
HCM Lane LOS B C F B F B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 2.6 16.4 0.5 18.1 2.2
t .,, lt t lt .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 PM
3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\4. Year 2025 PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 164 434 57 142 31 152 408 49 15 389 496 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 164 434 57 142 31 152 408 49 15 389 496 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 185 178 472 62 154 34 165 443 53 16 423 539 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 226 540 639 87 313 69 204 1277 152 34 568 683 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.02 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1484 328 1781 3198 381 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 185 178 472 62 0 188 165 245 251 16 423 539 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1811 1781 1777 1802 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 5.5 18.7 2.5 0.0 6.7 6.7 7.1 7.2 0.7 15.0 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 5.5 18.7 2.5 0.0 6.7 6.7 7.1 7.2 0.7 15.0 21.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 226 540 639 87 0 382 204 709 719 34 568 683 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.33 0.74 0.71 0.00 0.49 0.81 0.35 0.35 0.47 0.74 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 278 573 667 167 0 442 244 709 719 121 568 683 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.4 20.6 18.7 34.5 0.0 25.6 31.9 15.4 15.5 35.8 23.1 18.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.6 0.4 4.2 10.3 0.0 1.0 15.7 0.3 0.3 10.0 5.3 6.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 2.4 7.0 1.3 0.0 2.9 3.7 2.7 2.8 0.4 7.0 8.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.0 21.0 22.9 44.9 0.0 26.6 47.5 15.7 15.7 45.8 28.4 24.3 LnGrp LOS D C C D A C D B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 835 250 661 978
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.6 31.1 23.7 26.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.9 33.9 8.1 25.8 12.9 26.9 13.8 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 27.5 6.9 22.6 10.1 22.4 11.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 9.2 4.5 20.7 8.7 23.6 9.5 8.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.5
HCM 6th LOS C
__ "i tf+ "i t 7' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 PM
4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\4. Year 2025 PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 400 1030 400 330 520 350
Future Volume (veh/h) 400 1030 400 330 520 350
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 435 1120 435 359 440 449
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 471 1185 594 920 469 417
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.63 0.32 0.32 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 435 1120 435 359 440 449
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 20.7 47.6 18.0 10.7 21.0 22.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.7 47.6 18.0 10.7 21.0 22.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 471 1185 594 920 469 417
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.95 0.73 0.39 0.94 1.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 502 1249 626 947 469 417
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.2 14.6 26.4 9.9 31.4 32.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 14.0 4.2 0.3 26.8 66.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.5 21.4 8.4 6.4 12.2 25.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 28.6 30.6 10.2 58.2 98.0
LnGrp LOS D C C B E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1555 794 889
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.6 21.4 78.3
Approach LOS D C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 59.6 27.4 27.5 32.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 58.1 22.9 24.5 29.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 49.6 24.9 22.7 20.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.5 0.0 0.3 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. "i t t 'f' "iV
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2025 PM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\4. Year 2025 PM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1640 0 0 520 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1640 0 0 520 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1783 0 0 565 0 0

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1783 0 2066 892
Stage 1 - - - - 1783 -
Stage 2 - - - - 283 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 344 - 47 285
Stage 1 - - - - 120 -
Stage 2 - - - - 740 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 344 - 47 285
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 103 -
Stage 1 - - - - 120 -
Stage 2 - - - - 740 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) ---- 3 4 4-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) ---- 0-
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 PM
7: La Moore Dr & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\4. Year 2025 PM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 974 66 95 452 68 75
Future Volume (veh/h) 974 66 95 452 68 75
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1059 72 103 491 74 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1989 135 433 2094 213 189
Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 3470 229 498 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 557 574 103 491 74 82
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1829 498 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 5.8 4.8 2.0 1.2 1.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 5.8 10.6 2.0 1.2 1.5
Prop In Lane 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1047 1078 433 2094 213 189
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.53 0.24 0.23 0.35 0.43
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3539 3643 1131 7077 1125 1001
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.8 3.8 7.0 3.0 12.5 12.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.0 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.2 4.2 7.3 3.1 13.5 14.2
LnGrp LOS AAAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1131 594 156
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.2 3.8 13.8
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.7 22.7 8.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 61.5 61.5 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 12.6 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.2 5.6 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.9
HCM 6th LOS A

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX F
NEAR-TERM (YEAR 2025) + PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 +P AM 1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\5. Year 2025 + P AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 661 995 0 493 29
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 661 995 0 493 29
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 718 1082 0 536 32
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 022022
Cap, veh/h 0 1087 1087 0 546 485
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 718 1082 0 536 32
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 20.9 46.0 0.0 23.9 1.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 20.9 46.0 0.0 23.9 1.1
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1087 1087 0 546 485
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.66 1.00 0.00 0.98 0.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1087 1087 0 546 485
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 11.4 16.6 0.0 27.5 19.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.5 26.1 0.0 33.9 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 7.9 24.3 0.0 14.7 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 12.9 42.7 0.0 61.5 19.7
LnGrp LOS A B D A E B
Approach Vol, veh/h 718 1082 568
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.9 42.7 59.1
Approach LOS B D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.0 29.0 51.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.5 24.5 46.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.9 25.9 48.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.6
HCM 6th LOS D
t t
HCM 6th AWSC Year 2025 +P AM
2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\5. Year 2025 + P AM.syn
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh88.2
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 232 41 645 332 189 194
Future Vol, veh/h 232 41 645 332 189 194
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 252 45 701 361 205 211
Number of Lanes 1 11111
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach Left NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 0 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 2
HCM Control Delay 16.8 136.5 16

HCM LOS C F C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 189 194 232 41 645 332
LT Vol 189 0 0 0 645 0
Through Vol 0 0 232 0 0 332
RT Vol 0 194 0 41 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 205 211 252 45 701 361
Geometry Grp 777777
Degree of Util (X) 0.45 0.392 0.506 0.081 1.363 0.65
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.339 7.112 7.667 6.947 6.997 6.488 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 436 510 474 519 519 556
Service Time 6.039 4.812 5.367 4.647 4.735 4.225
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.47 0.414 0.532 0.087 1.351 0.649
HCM Control Delay 17.7 14.3 18 10.3 196.2 20.5
HCM Lane LOS C B C B F C
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.3 1.8 2.8 0.3 31.5 4.7
t .,, lt t lt .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 +P AM 3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\5. Year 2025 + P AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 87 315 82 265 11 219 159 56 16 455 550 Future Volume (veh/h) 63 87 315 82 265 11 219 159 56 16 455 550 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 95 342 89 288 12 238 173 61 17 495 598 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 91 401 564 114 406 17 252 1193 407 35 630 615 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.02 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1783 74 1781 2601 886 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 95 342 89 0 300 238 116 118 17 495 598 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1857 1781 1777 1711 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 3.1 13.1 3.7 0.0 11.0 9.8 2.8 3.0 0.7 17.7 25.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 3.1 13.1 3.7 0.0 11.0 9.8 2.8 3.0 0.7 17.7 25.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 91 401 564 114 0 423 252 815 785 35 630 615 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.24 0.61 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.94 0.14 0.15 0.48 0.79 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 204 494 643 166 0 451 252 815 785 120 630 615 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.7 24.1 19.6 34.2 0.0 26.4 31.5 11.6 11.7 36.0 22.2 22.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.8 0.3 1.3 13.3 0.0 4.8 41.4 0.1 0.1 9.7 6.5 29.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 1.4 4.7 2.0 0.0 5.2 7.0 1.0 1.1 0.4 8.4 14.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.5 24.4 20.9 47.5 0.0 31.1 73.0 11.7 11.8 45.6 28.6 51.7 LnGrp LOS D C C D A C E B B D C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 505 389 472 1110
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 34.9 42.6 41.3
Approach LOS CCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.0 38.5 9.3 20.4 15.0 29.5 8.3 21.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 6.9 19.6 10.5 25.0 8.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 5.0 5.7 15.1 11.8 27.0 4.8 13.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.2
HCM 6th LOS D
__ "i tf+ "i t 7' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 +P AM 4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\5. Year 2025 + P AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 330 907 518 323 326 610
Future Volume (veh/h) 330 907 518 323 326 610
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 359 986 563 351 354 598
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 395 1134 639 1031 549 489
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.61 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 359 986 563 351 354 598
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 20.7 46.3 29.9 10.5 18.1 32.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.7 46.3 29.9 10.5 18.1 32.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 395 1134 639 1031 549 489
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.87 0.88 0.34 0.64 1.22
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 1393 790 1158 549 489
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.0 17.3 32.7 8.3 31.4 36.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.8 5.3 9.7 0.2 2.6 117.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.9 19.7 14.9 7.4 8.1 40.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.8 22.5 42.3 8.5 34.0 154.1
LnGrp LOS E C D A C F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1345 914 952
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.0 29.3 109.5
Approach LOS C C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 68.4 37.0 27.9 40.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.5 32.5 29.5 44.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 48.3 34.5 22.7 31.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.8 0.0 0.7 4.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. "i t t 'f' "iV
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2025 +P AM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 05/06/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\5. Year 2025 + P AM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1277 9 3 294 23 16
Future Vol, veh/h 1277 9 3 294 23 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1388 10 3 320 25 17

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1398 0 1559 699
Stage 1 - - - - 1393 -
Stage 2 - - - - 166 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 485 - 103 382
Stage 1 - - - - 195 -
Stage 2 - - - - 846 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 485 - 102 382
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 169 -
Stage 1 - - - - 195 -
Stage 2 - - - - 841 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 23.8

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 169 382 - - 485 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.148 0.046 - - 0.007 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 30 14.9 - - 12.5 -
HCM Lane LOS D B - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.1 - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2025 +P AM
6: Proj Dwy 2 & Barham Dr 05/06/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\5. Year 2025 + P AM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1289 4 3 289 8 31
Future Vol, veh/h 1289 4 3 289 8 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1401 4 3 314 9 34

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1405 0 1566 703
Stage 1 - - - - 1403 -
Stage 2 - - - - 163 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 482 - 102 380
Stage 1 - - - - 193 -
Stage 2 - - - - 849 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 482 - 101 380
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 167 -
Stage 1 - - - - 193 -
Stage 2 - - - - 844 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 17.9

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 167 380 - - 482 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.089 - - 0.007 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 27.7 15.4 - - 12.5 -
HCM Lane LOS D C - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.3 - - 0 -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 +P AM 7: La Moore Dr & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\5. Year 2025 + P AM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 590 35 32 249 43 80
Future Volume (veh/h) 590 35 32 249 43 80
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 641 38 35 271 47 87
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1531 91 582 1596 229 204
Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 3502 202 761 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 334 345 35 271 47 87
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1834 761 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 2.7 0.7 1.0 0.5 1.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 2.7 3.4 1.0 0.5 1.1
Prop In Lane 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 798 824 582 1596 229 204
V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.17 0.21 0.43
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4212 4348 2044 8424 2550 2269
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.0 4.0 5.1 3.5 8.3 8.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.3 4.3 5.2 3.6 8.7 10.0
LnGrp LOS AAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 679 306 134
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.3 3.7 9.5
Approach LOS A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 14.1 7.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.5 50.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 5.4 3.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.8 2.2 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues Year 2025 +P AM
7: La Moore Dr & Barham Dr 03/17/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\5. Year 2025 + P AM.syn
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 679 35 271 47 87
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.23
Control Delay 4.6 4.8 4.1 11.5 4.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 4.6 4.8 4.1 11.5 4.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 2 10 8 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 10 21 19 17
Internal Link Dist (ft) 477 3533 844
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 3511 732 3539 1602 1441
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.06
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 + P PM 1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\6. Year 2025 + P PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1090 756 0 263 16
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1090 756 0 263 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1185 822 0 286 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 022022
Cap, veh/h 0 1176 1176 0 356 317
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1185 822 0 286 17
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 0 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 33.0 15.3 0.0 8.0 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 33.0 15.3 0.0 8.0 0.5
Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1176 1176 0 356 317
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.01 0.70 0.00 0.80 0.05
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1176 1176 0 611 544
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 9.7 6.5 0.0 20.0 17.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 28.1 1.9 0.0 4.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 17.2 4.3 0.0 3.4 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 37.9 8.3 0.0 24.3 17.1
LnGrp LOS A F A A C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1185 822 303
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.9 8.3 23.9
Approach LOS D A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 15.0 37.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 33.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 35.0 10.0 17.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 5.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5
HCM 6th LOS C
t t
HCM 6th AWSC Year 2025 + P PM
2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\6. Year 2025 + P PM.syn
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh68.9
Intersection LOS F
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 510 80 519 214 96 247
Future Vol, veh/h 510 80 519 214 96 247
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 554 87 564 233 104 268
Number of Lanes 1 11111
Approach EB WB NB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 0
Conflicting Approach Left NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 0 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 2
HCM Control Delay 79.2 85 16.9

HCM LOS F F C

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 96 247 510 80 519 214
LT Vol 96 0 0 0 519 0
Through Vol 0 0 510 0 0 214
RT Vol 0 247 0 80 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 104 268 554 87 564 233
Geometry Grp 777777
Degree of Util (X) 0.239 0.524 1.08 0.152 1.147 0.441
Departure Headway (Hd) 8.672 7.431 7.257 6.539 7.522 7.009 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 416 489 504 552 485 516
Service Time 6.372 5.131 4.957 4.239 5.222 4.709
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.25 0.548 1.099 0.158 1.163 0.452
HCM Control Delay 14.1 18 90 10.4 113.8 15.1
HCM Lane LOS B C F B F C
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 3 16.9 0.5 19.4 2.2
t .,, lt t lt .,,
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 + P PM 3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\6. Year 2025 + P PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 164 455 57 142 31 161 410 49 15 393 496 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 164 455 57 142 31 161 410 49 15 393 496 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 185 178 495 62 154 34 175 446 53 16 427 539 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 225 552 658 86 322 71 213 1276 151 34 557 672 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.02 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1484 328 1781 3201 379 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 185 178 495 62 0 188 175 247 252 16 427 539 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1811 1781 1777 1802 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.6 5.6 20.0 2.6 0.0 6.8 7.2 7.3 7.4 0.7 15.6 22.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 5.6 20.0 2.6 0.0 6.8 7.2 7.3 7.4 0.7 15.6 22.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 225 552 658 86 0 393 213 708 718 34 557 672 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.32 0.75 0.72 0.00 0.48 0.82 0.35 0.35 0.48 0.77 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 562 666 163 0 433 239 708 718 118 557 672 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 20.7 18.7 35.3 0.0 25.7 32.3 15.8 15.8 36.6 24.1 18.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.4 0.3 4.8 10.8 0.0 0.9 18.2 0.3 0.3 10.1 6.4 6.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 2.4 7.6 1.4 0.0 2.9 4.1 2.8 2.9 0.4 7.5 8.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.5 21.0 23.5 46.1 0.0 26.6 50.5 16.1 16.1 46.6 30.4 25.9 LnGrp LOS D C C D A C D B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 858 250 674 982
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.1 31.5 25.0 28.2
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.9 34.5 8.1 26.7 13.5 26.9 14.0 20.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 27.5 6.9 22.6 10.1 22.4 11.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 9.4 4.6 22.0 9.2 24.3 9.6 8.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.7
HCM 6th LOS C
__ "i tf+ "i t 7' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 + P PM 4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\6. Year 2025 + P PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 400 1060 403 341 545 350
Future Volume (veh/h) 400 1060 403 341 545 350
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 435 1152 438 371 453 463
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 468 1187 601 928 471 419
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.63 0.32 0.32 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 435 1152 438 371 453 463
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1870 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 21.2 52.3 18.5 11.3 22.4 23.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.2 52.3 18.5 11.3 22.4 23.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 468 1187 601 928 471 419
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.97 0.73 0.40 0.96 1.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 489 1203 601 928 471 419
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 15.5 26.8 10.0 32.4 32.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.7 19.1 4.5 0.3 31.7 75.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.9 24.8 8.7 6.8 13.5 8.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.8 34.6 31.3 10.3 64.0 108.1
LnGrp LOS E C C B E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1587 809 916
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.4 21.7 86.3
Approach LOS D C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 61.1 28.1 28.0 33.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 57.4 23.6 24.5 28.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 54.3 25.6 23.2 20.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 0.0 0.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. "i t t 'f' "iV
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2025 + P PM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 05/06/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\6. Year 2025 + P PM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1657 38 13 524 10 7
Future Vol, veh/h 1657 38 13 524 10 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1801 41 14 570 11 8

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1842 0 2135 921
Stage 1 - - - - 1822 -
Stage 2 - - - - 313 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 326 - 42 273
Stage 1 - - - - 114 -
Stage 2 - - - - 715 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 326 - 40 273
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 97 -
Stage 1 - - - - 114 -
Stage 2 - - - - 684 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 35.1

HCM LOS E

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 97 273 - - 326 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.112 0.028 - - 0.043 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 46.7 18.6 - - 16.5 -
HCM Lane LOS E C - - C -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2025 + P PM
6: Proj Dwy 2 & Barham Dr 05/06/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\6. Year 2025 + P PM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1647 17 17 533 4 15
Future Vol, veh/h 1647 17 17 533 4 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1790 18 18 579 4 16

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1808 0 2125 904
Stage 1 - - - - 1799 -
Stage 2 - - - - 326 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 336 - 43 280
Stage 1 - - - - 117 -
Stage 2 - - - - 704 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 336 - 41 280
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 99 -
Stage 1 - - - - 117 -
Stage 2 - - - - 666 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 23.8

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 99 280 - - 336 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.058 - - 0.055 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 43 18.7 - - 16.3 -
HCM Lane LOS E C - - C -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 - - 0.2 -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2025 + P PM 7: La Moore Dr & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\6. Year 2025 + P PM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 994 68 95 478 72 75
Future Volume (veh/h) 994 68 95 478 72 75
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1080 74 103 520 78 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2016 138 425 2123 212 189
Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 3468 231 487 3647 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 568 586 103 520 78 82
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1829 487 1777 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 6.0 5.0 2.2 1.3 1.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.0 6.0 11.1 2.2 1.3 1.5
Prop In Lane 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1061 1092 425 2123 212 189
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.54 0.24 0.24 0.37 0.43
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3443 3543 1078 6885 1094 974
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.8 3.8 7.1 3.0 12.9 13.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.1 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.2 4.2 7.4 3.1 13.9 14.6
LnGrp LOS AAAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1154 623 160
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.2 3.8 14.3
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.5 23.5 8.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 61.5 61.5 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 13.1 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.5 5.9 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.9
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues Year 2025 + P PM
7: La Moore Dr & Barham Dr 03/17/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\6. Year 2025 + P PM.syn
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1154 103 520 78 82
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.36 0.21 0.25 0.24
Control Delay 5.0 9.1 3.7 19.0 7.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.0 9.1 3.7 19.0 7.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 64 10 23 17 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 42 45 49 27
Internal Link Dist (ft) 477 3533 844
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 3504 408 3539 816 774
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.25 0.15 0.10 0.11
Intersection Summary

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX G
YEAR 2050 WITHOUT PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 AM
1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\7. YEAR 2050 AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 620 930 0 460 30
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 620 930 0 460 30
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 674 1011 0 500 33
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 6 2225 2225 0 864 396
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 5443 0 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 674 1011 0 500 33
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1702 0 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 2.5 4.0 0.0 3.6 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 2.5 4.0 0.0 3.6 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 2225 2225 0 864 396
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.30 0.45 0.00 0.58 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1026 7647 3904 0 2184 1002
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.3 5.7 0.0 9.4 8.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 5.3 5.8 0.0 10.0 8.3
LnGrp LOS AAAABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 674 1011 533
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.3 5.8 9.9
Approach LOS A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 11.7 0.0 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.9 18.1 16.5 21.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 5.6 0.0 6.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 1.6 0.0 6.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.7
HCM 6th LOS A
______ "i ttt ttf+
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 AM
2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\7. YEAR 2050 AM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 250 45 730 355 205 220
Future Volume (veh/h) 250 45 730 355 205 220
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 272 49 793 386 223 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 363 65 1039 1189 292
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.30 0.64 0.16 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1542 278 3456 1870 1781 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 321 793 386 223 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1820 1728 1870 1781 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.4 9.4 4.3 5.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.4 9.4 4.3 5.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 428 1039 1189 292
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.75 0.76 0.32 0.76
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 729 1514 1755 745
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 16.0 14.3 3.8 18.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.7 1.4 0.2 4.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.9 3.2 0.9 2.3 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.6 15.7 3.9 22.1 0.0
LnGrp LOS A B B A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 321 1179 223 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.6 11.8 22.1
Approach LOS B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 18.0 15.1 33.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.8 19.7 18.0 42.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 11.4 9.4 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.2 1.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. f+ "i"i t "i 7'7' ------------
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 AM
3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\7. YEAR 2050 AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 90 290 80 250 10 190 150 60 20 430 520 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 90 290 80 250 10 190 150 60 20 430 520 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 98 315 87 272 11 207 163 65 22 467 500 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 94 400 569 113 782 31 258 1064 408 45 1081 566 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 3482 140 1781 2511 963 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65 98 315 87 138 145 207 113 115 22 467 500 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1845 1781 1777 1697 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 2.9 10.5 3.2 4.3 4.3 7.4 2.6 2.7 0.8 6.9 19.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 2.9 10.5 3.2 4.3 4.3 7.4 2.6 2.7 0.8 6.9 19.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 94 400 569 113 399 414 258 753 719 45 1081 566 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.24 0.55 0.77 0.35 0.35 0.80 0.15 0.16 0.49 0.43 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 718 967 1049 284 486 505 474 878 839 135 1081 566 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.6 21.4 16.9 30.3 21.4 21.5 27.2 11.7 11.7 31.6 18.3 19.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 0.3 0.8 10.5 0.5 0.5 5.8 0.1 0.1 8.1 0.3 15.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 1.2 3.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 3.4 0.9 1.0 0.4 2.7 8.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.3 21.8 17.7 40.8 22.0 22.0 33.0 11.8 11.8 39.7 18.6 35.2 LnGrp LOS D C B DCCCBBDBD
Approach Vol, veh/h 478 370 435 989
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 26.4 21.9 27.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.2 32.4 8.7 18.6 14.0 24.5 8.0 19.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 32.5 10.5 34.0 17.5 20.0 26.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 4.7 5.2 12.5 9.4 21.5 4.4 6.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.9
HCM 6th LOS C
"i t '{' "i tf+ "i tt '{' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 AM
4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\7. YEAR 2050 AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 320 880 500 290 320 610
Future Volume (veh/h) 320 880 500 290 320 610
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 957 543 315 348 587
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 417 1994 861 811 480 752
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.56 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3647 1585 1781 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 348 957 543 315 348 587
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1777 1585 1781 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 8.6 7.3 6.4 9.4 10.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 8.6 7.3 6.4 9.4 10.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 417 1994 861 811 480 752
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.48 0.63 0.39 0.72 0.78
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 620 2877 1338 1024 604 945
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 7.0 18.0 7.9 17.6 17.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 3.2 3.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 2.4 2.7 3.3 3.9 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 7.2 18.8 8.2 20.8 21.3
LnGrp LOS C A B A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1305 858 935
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 14.9 21.1
Approach LOS B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.3 18.8 16.9 17.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.0 18.0 18.5 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.6 12.3 11.9 9.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.2 2.0 0.6 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.6
HCM 6th LOS B
"i tt tt .,, "i .,,.,, ------------
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2050 AM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\7. YEAR 2050 AM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1200 0 0 294 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1200 0 0 294 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1304 0 0 320 0 0

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1304 0 1464 652
Stage 1 - - - - 1304 -
Stage 2 - - - - 160 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 527 - 119 411
Stage 1 - - - - 218 -
Stage 2 - - - - 852 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 527 - 119 411
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 188 -
Stage 1 - - - - 218 -
Stage 2 - - - - 852 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) ---- 5 2 7-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) ---- 0-
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2050 AM
6: Proj Dwy 2 & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\7. YEAR 2050 AM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1200 0 0 294 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1200 0 0 294 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1304 0 0 320 0 0

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 527 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
+ft ¥
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 AM
7: La Moore Rd & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\7. YEAR 2050 AM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 562 32 33 251 43 83
Future Volume (veh/h) 562 32 33 251 43 83
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 611 35 36 273 47 90
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1487 85 0 2222 74 142
Arrive On Green 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.44 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 195 0 5274 562 1075
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 317 329 0 273 138 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1835 0 1702 1649 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.11 0.00 0.34 0.65
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 773 799 0 2222 218 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.12 0.63 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3673 3794 0 12887 2259 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.0 4.0 0.0 3.5 8.6 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.4 4.4 0.0 3.5 11.6 0.0
LnGrp LOS AAAABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 646 273 138
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.4 3.5 11.6
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 13.6 13.6 7.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 43.0 52.5 28.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 4.6 2.7 3.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.5 2.0 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.1
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 PM
1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\8. YEAR 2050 PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1040 710 0 230 20
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1040 710 0 230 20
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1130 772 0 250 22
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 6 2839 2839 0 511 234
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 5443 0 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1130 772 0 250 22
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1702 0 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 3.8 2.4 0.0 2.0 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 3.8 2.4 0.0 2.0 0.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 2839 2839 0 511 234
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.40 0.27 0.00 0.49 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1834 10581 4568 0 2046 938
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 3.8 3.5 0.0 11.9 11.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 3.9 3.6 0.0 12.6 11.4
LnGrp LOS AAAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1130 772 272
Approach Delay, s/veh 3.9 3.6 12.5
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.4 9.0 0.0 21.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 63.0 18.0 31.3 27.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 4.0 0.0 4.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.1 0.8 0.0 5.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.9
HCM 6th LOS A
______ "i ttt ttf+
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 PM
2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\8. YEAR 2050 PM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 545 85 600 230 105 265
Future Volume (veh/h) 545 85 600 230 105 265
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 592 92 652 250 114 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 704 109 824 1424 151
Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.24 0.76 0.08 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1581 246 3456 1870 1781 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 684 652 250 114 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1826 1728 1870 1781 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 19.4 10.3 2.1 3.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 19.4 10.3 2.1 3.6 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 814 824 1424 151
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.84 0.79 0.18 0.76
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1218 1156 2018 553
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 14.3 20.8 1.9 26.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.5 2.6 0.1 7.5 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 7.5 4.1 0.3 1.8 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 17.8 23.4 2.0 33.6 0.0
LnGrp LOS A B C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 684 902 114 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 17.5 33.6
Approach LOS B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.4 30.5 48.9 9.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 38.9 62.9 18.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 21.4 4.1 5.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 4.6 1.6 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. f+ "i"i t "i 7'7' ------------
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 PM
3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\8. YEAR 2050 PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 160 410 60 140 30 150 390 50 20 370 468 Future Volume (veh/h) 160 160 410 60 140 30 150 390 50 20 370 468 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 174 446 65 152 33 163 424 54 22 402 444 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 221 544 646 93 639 135 207 1168 148 45 983 635 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 2918 618 1781 3173 402 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 174 446 65 91 94 163 236 242 22 402 444 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1759 1781 1777 1798 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 5.0 15.8 2.4 2.9 3.0 6.1 6.6 6.7 0.8 6.3 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 5.0 15.8 2.4 2.9 3.0 6.1 6.6 6.7 0.8 6.3 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 221 544 646 93 389 385 207 654 662 45 983 635 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.32 0.69 0.70 0.23 0.24 0.79 0.36 0.37 0.49 0.41 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 483 766 833 225 469 465 405 795 805 131 1043 662 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.0 18.9 16.7 31.8 21.9 22.0 29.3 15.7 15.7 32.8 20.1 17.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.3 1.7 9.3 0.3 0.3 6.5 0.3 0.3 8.2 0.3 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 2.1 5.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 2.9 2.5 2.6 0.4 2.5 5.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 19.2 18.3 41.1 22.2 22.3 35.8 16.0 16.1 41.0 20.4 20.1 LnGrp LOS D B B DCCDBBDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 794 250 641 868
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 27.2 21.1 20.8
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.2 29.6 8.0 24.3 12.4 23.4 13.0 19.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 8.6 27.9 15.5 20.0 18.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 8.7 4.4 17.8 8.1 17.9 8.5 5.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.0 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.9
HCM 6th LOS C
"i t '{' "i tf+ "i tt '{' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 PM
4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\8. YEAR 2050 PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 400 1020 390 320 520 350
Future Volume (veh/h) 400 1020 390 320 520 350
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 435 1109 424 348 565 304
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 501 2012 760 801 520 814
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.57 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3647 1585 1781 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 435 1109 424 348 565 304
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1777 1585 1781 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.7 12.5 6.8 8.8 18.5 5.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 12.5 6.8 8.8 18.5 5.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 501 2012 760 801 520 814
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.55 0.56 0.43 1.09 0.37
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 801 2943 1093 950 520 814
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.7 8.7 22.2 9.9 22.4 17.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 65.1 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.5 3.9 2.7 5.0 16.4 4.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 8.9 22.9 10.3 87.6 18.1
LnGrp LOS C A C B F B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1544 772 869
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 17.2 63.3
Approach LOS B B E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.4 23.0 22.3 18.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.5 18.5 28.5 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 20.5 16.7 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.4 0.0 1.1 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.3
HCM 6th LOS C
"i tt tt .,, "i .,,.,, ------------
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2050 PM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\8. YEAR 2050 PM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1540 0 0 534 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1540 0 0 534 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1674 0 0 580 0 0

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1674 0 1964 837
Stage 1 - - - - 1674 -
Stage 2 - - - - 290 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 379 - 55 310
Stage 1 - - - - 138 -
Stage 2 - - - - 734 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 379 - 55 310
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 118 -
Stage 1 - - - - 138 -
Stage 2 - - - - 734 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) ---- 3 7 9-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) ---- 0-
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2050 PM
6: Proj Dwy 2 & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\8. YEAR 2050 PM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1540 0 0 534 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1540 0 0 534 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1674 0 0 580 0 0

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 379 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
+ft ¥
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 PM
7: La Moore Rd & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\8. YEAR 2050 PM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1001 68 98 464 70 77
Future Volume (veh/h) 1001 68 98 464 70 77
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1088 74 107 504 76 84
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1980 135 0 2995 101 111
Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.59 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 3470 230 0 5274 790 873
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 572 590 0 504 161 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1829 0 1702 1674 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 6.2 0.0 1.4 2.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 6.2 0.0 1.4 2.9 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.13 0.00 0.47 0.52
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1042 1073 0 2995 214 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.17 0.75 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2821 2904 0 9648 1143 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 13.3 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.4 4.4 0.0 3.0 18.6 0.0
LnGrp LOS AAAABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 1162 504 161
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.4 3.0 18.6
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 23.0 23.0 8.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 50.0 59.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 8.2 3.4 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.3 4.0 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.3
HCM 6th LOS A

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX H
YEAR 2050 + PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P AM 1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\9. YEAR 2050 +P AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 622 938 0 465 30
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 622 938 0 465 30
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 676 1020 0 505 33
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 6 2230 2230 0 868 398
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 5443 0 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 676 1020 0 505 33
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1702 0 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 2.5 4.1 0.0 3.7 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 2.5 4.1 0.0 3.7 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 2230 2230 0 868 398
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.30 0.46 0.00 0.58 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1019 7596 3878 0 2169 995
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 5.3 5.7 0.0 9.5 8.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 5.3 5.9 0.0 10.1 8.3
LnGrp LOS AAAABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 676 1020 538
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.3 5.9 10.0
Approach LOS A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.1 11.7 0.0 17.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.9 18.1 16.5 21.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 5.7 0.0 6.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 1.6 0.0 6.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.7
HCM 6th LOS A
______ "i ttt ttf+
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P AM 2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\9. YEAR 2050 +P AM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 250 45 750 355 205 225
Future Volume (veh/h) 250 45 750 355 205 225
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 272 49 815 386 223 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 361 65 1056 1195 291
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.31 0.64 0.16 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1542 278 3456 1870 1781 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 321 815 386 223 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1820 1728 1870 1781 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.5 9.8 4.3 5.5 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.5 9.8 4.3 5.5 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 426 1056 1195 291
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.75 0.77 0.32 0.77
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 719 1495 1733 735
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 16.2 14.4 3.7 18.2 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.7 1.6 0.2 4.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 3.0 3.4 0.9 2.3 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.9 16.0 3.9 22.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS A B B A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 321 1201 223 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.9 12.1 22.4
Approach LOS B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 18.4 15.2 33.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.8 19.7 18.0 42.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 11.8 9.5 6.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.2 1.2 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. f+ "i"i t "i 7'7' ------------
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P AM 3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\9. YEAR 2050 +P AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 90 295 80 250 10 210 153 60 20 431 520 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 90 295 80 250 10 210 153 60 20 431 520 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 98 321 87 272 11 228 166 65 22 468 500 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 93 400 588 113 783 32 279 1085 409 45 1058 555 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.43 0.43 0.03 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 3482 140 1781 2524 951 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65 98 321 87 138 145 228 115 116 22 468 500 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1845 1781 1777 1699 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 2.9 10.7 3.2 4.4 4.4 8.3 2.6 2.8 0.8 7.2 20.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 2.9 10.7 3.2 4.4 4.4 8.3 2.6 2.8 0.8 7.2 20.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 93 400 588 113 400 415 279 763 730 45 1058 555 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.24 0.55 0.77 0.35 0.35 0.82 0.15 0.16 0.49 0.44 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 703 947 1051 279 476 495 464 860 822 133 1058 555 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.3 21.9 16.7 31.0 21.9 21.9 27.4 11.7 11.7 32.3 19.1 20.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 0.3 0.8 10.5 0.5 0.5 5.8 0.1 0.1 8.2 0.3 17.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 1.3 3.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 3.8 1.0 1.0 0.4 2.8 9.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.3 22.2 17.5 41.5 22.4 22.4 33.2 11.8 11.8 40.5 19.4 38.5 LnGrp LOS D C B DCCCBBDBD
Approach Vol, veh/h 484 370 459 990
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 26.9 22.4 29.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.2 33.3 8.8 18.9 15.0 24.5 8.0 19.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 32.5 10.5 34.0 17.5 20.0 26.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 4.8 5.2 12.7 10.3 22.0 4.4 6.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0
HCM 6th LOS C
"i t '{' "i tf+ "i tt '{' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P AM 4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\9. YEAR 2050 +P AM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 320 887 508 313 326 610
Future Volume (veh/h) 320 887 508 313 326 610
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 964 552 340 354 587
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 416 2001 872 815 479 750
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.56 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3647 1585 1781 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 348 964 552 340 354 587
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1777 1585 1781 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 8.7 7.4 7.1 9.7 10.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 8.7 7.4 7.1 9.7 10.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 416 2001 872 815 479 750
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.48 0.63 0.42 0.74 0.78
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 615 2854 1327 1018 599 938
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.5 7.0 18.1 8.0 17.9 18.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 0.2 0.8 0.3 3.7 3.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 2.4 2.8 3.7 4.0 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.0 7.2 18.8 8.4 21.6 21.6
LnGrp LOS C A B A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1312 892 941
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.2 14.8 21.6
Approach LOS B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.6 18.9 17.0 17.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.0 18.0 18.5 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.7 12.4 12.0 9.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.3 2.0 0.6 3.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7
HCM 6th LOS B
"i tt tt .,, "i .,,.,, ------------
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2050 + P AM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 05/06/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\9. YEAR 2050 +P AM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1204 9 3 302 23 16
Future Vol, veh/h 1204 9 3 302 23 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1309 10 3 328 25 17

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1319 0 1484 660
Stage 1 - - - - 1314 -
Stage 2 - - - - 170 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 520 - 116 406
Stage 1 - - - - 216 -
Stage 2 - - - - 843 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 520 - 115 406
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 186 -
Stage 1 - - - - 216 -
Stage 2 - - - - 838 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 22

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 186 406 - - 520 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.134 0.043 - - 0.006 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 27.3 14.3 - - 12 -
HCM Lane LOS D B - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.1 - - 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2050 + P AM
6: Proj Dwy 2 & Barham Dr 05/06/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\9. YEAR 2050 +P AM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1216 4 3 297 8 31
Future Vol, veh/h 1216 4 3 297 8 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1322 4 3 323 9 34

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1326 0 1492 663
Stage 1 - - - - 1324 -
Stage 2 - - - - 168 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 517 - 114 404
Stage 1 - - - - 213 -
Stage 2 - - - - 844 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 517 - 113 404
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 183 -
Stage 1 - - - - 213 -
Stage 2 - - - - 839 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 17

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 183 404 - - 517 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 0.083 - - 0.006 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 25.7 14.7 - - 12 -
HCM Lane LOS D B - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.3 - - 0 -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P AM 7: La Moore Rd & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\9. YEAR 2050 +P AM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 605 36 33 256 44 83
Future Volume (veh/h) 605 36 33 256 44 83
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 658 39 36 278 48 90
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1542 91 0 2310 75 140
Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 3502 202 0 5274 570 1068
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 343 354 0 278 139 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1834 0 1702 1650 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.11 0.00 0.35 0.65
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 804 830 0 2310 216 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.12 0.64 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3538 3652 0 12412 2177 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.0 4.0 0.0 3.4 8.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.4 4.4 0.0 3.4 12.1 0.0
LnGrp LOS AAAABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 697 278 139
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.4 3.4 12.1
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 14.3 14.3 7.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 43.0 52.5 28.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 4.8 2.7 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.9 2.1 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.1
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P PM 1: Barham Dr & SR-78 EB Off 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\10. YEAR 2050 +P PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1049 713 0 251 20
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1049 713 0 251 20
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1140 775 0 273 22
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 6 2840 2840 0 525 241
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5274 5443 0 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1140 775 0 273 22
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1702 0 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 3.9 2.4 0.0 2.2 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 3.9 2.4 0.0 2.2 0.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 2840 2840 0 525 241
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.40 0.27 0.00 0.52 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1809 10435 4505 0 2018 925
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 3.9 3.6 0.0 12.0 11.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 4.0 3.6 0.0 12.8 11.4
LnGrp LOS AAAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1140 775 295
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.0 3.6 12.7
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.6 9.2 0.0 21.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 63.0 18.0 31.3 27.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 4.2 0.0 4.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.2 0.8 0.0 5.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.0
HCM 6th LOS A
______ "i ttt ttf+
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P PM 2: SR 78 WB Ramp & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\10. YEAR 2050 +P PM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 545 85 609 230 105 286
Future Volume (veh/h) 545 85 609 230 105 286
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 592 92 662 250 114 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 703 109 832 1426 151
Arrive On Green 0.44 0.44 0.24 0.76 0.08 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1581 246 3456 1870 1781 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 684 662 250 114 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1826 1728 1870 1781 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 19.5 10.6 2.2 3.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 19.5 10.6 2.2 3.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 812 832 1426 151
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.84 0.80 0.18 0.76
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1210 1148 2004 549
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 14.5 20.9 1.9 26.3 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 3.6 2.8 0.1 7.5 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 7.5 4.2 0.3 1.8 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.0 23.7 2.0 33.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS A B C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 684 912 114 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.0 17.7 33.8
Approach LOS B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.6 30.6 49.3 9.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 38.9 62.9 18.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.6 21.5 4.2 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 4.6 1.6 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. f+ "i"i t "i 7'7' ------------
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P PM 3: Woodland Pkwy & Rancheros Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\10. YEAR 2050 +P PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 160 431 60 140 30 159 392 50 20 374 468 Future Volume (veh/h) 160 160 431 60 140 30 159 392 50 20 374 468 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 174 468 65 152 33 173 426 54 22 407 444 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 220 559 667 91 660 140 217 1175 148 44 970 628 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 2918 618 1781 3175 400 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 174 468 65 91 94 173 237 243 22 407 444 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1759 1781 1777 1798 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.7 5.1 17.1 2.5 2.9 3.1 6.7 6.8 6.9 0.9 6.6 16.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.7 5.1 17.1 2.5 2.9 3.1 6.7 6.8 6.9 0.9 6.6 16.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 220 559 667 91 402 398 217 658 666 44 970 628 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.31 0.70 0.71 0.23 0.24 0.80 0.36 0.36 0.50 0.42 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 467 740 821 217 454 449 392 769 778 126 1008 645 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.0 19.1 16.8 32.9 22.2 22.3 30.1 16.1 16.2 33.9 21.0 17.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 0.3 2.0 9.9 0.3 0.3 6.5 0.3 0.3 8.4 0.3 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 2.1 6.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 3.1 2.7 2.7 0.5 2.6 6.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.3 19.4 18.8 42.9 22.5 22.6 36.6 16.5 16.5 42.3 21.3 21.3 LnGrp LOS D B B DCCDBBDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 816 250 653 873
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.7 27.8 21.8 21.8
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.3 30.6 8.1 25.6 13.1 23.7 13.2 20.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 8.6 27.9 15.5 20.0 18.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 8.9 4.5 19.1 8.7 18.6 8.7 5.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.7
HCM 6th LOS C
"i t '{' "i tf+ "i tt '{' ____ _
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P PM 4: Barham Dr & Woodland Pkwy 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\10. YEAR 2050 +P PM.syn
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 400 1050 393 331 545 350
Future Volume (veh/h) 400 1050 393 331 545 350
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 435 1141 427 360 592 304
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222
Cap, veh/h 501 2025 775 805 516 808
Arrive On Green 0.28 0.57 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3647 1585 1781 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 435 1141 427 360 592 304
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1777 1585 1781 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.8 13.0 6.8 9.2 18.5 5.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.8 13.0 6.8 9.2 18.5 5.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 501 2025 775 805 516 808
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.56 0.55 0.45 1.15 0.38
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 794 2919 1084 942 516 808
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.9 8.7 22.2 10.0 22.7 18.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 87.3 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.6 4.0 2.7 5.2 19.6 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.1 9.0 22.8 10.4 110.0 18.4
LnGrp LOS C A C B F B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1576 787 896
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 17.1 78.9
Approach LOS B B E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.9 23.0 22.5 18.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.5 18.5 28.5 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 20.5 16.8 11.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.8 0.0 1.1 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7
HCM 6th LOS C
"i tt tt .,, "i .,,.,, ------------
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2050 + P PM
5: Proj Dwy 1 & Barham Dr 05/06/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\10. YEAR 2050 +P PM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1557 38 13 538 10 7
Future Vol, veh/h 1557 38 13 538 10 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1692 41 14 585 11 8

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1733 0 2034 867
Stage 1 - - - - 1713 -
Stage 2 - - - - 321 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 360 - 49 296
Stage 1 - - - - 131 -
Stage 2 - - - - 708 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 360 - 47 296
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 111 -
Stage 1 - - - - 131 -
Stage 2 - - - - 680 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 31.3

HCM LOS D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 111 296 - - 360 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.098 0.026 - - 0.039 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 40.9 17.5 - - 15.4 -
HCM Lane LOS E C - - C -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.1 - - 0.1 -
HCM 6th TWSC Year 2050 + P PM
6: Proj Dwy 2 & Barham Dr 05/06/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\10. YEAR 2050 +P PM.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1547 17 17 547 4 15
Future Vol, veh/h 1547 17 17 547 4 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1682 18 18 595 4 16

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1700 0 2025 850
Stage 1 - - - - 1691 -
Stage 2 - - - - 334 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 371 - 50 304
Stage 1 - - - - 135 -
Stage 2 - - - - 697 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 371 - 48 304
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 113 -
Stage 1 - - - - 135 -
Stage 2 - - - - 663 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 21.8

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 113 304 - - 371 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 0.054 - - 0.05 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 38.1 17.5 - - 15.2 -
HCM Lane LOS E C - - C -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 - - 0.2 -
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2050 + P PM 7: La Moore Rd & Barham Dr 03/16/2021
Barham Residential Synchro 10 Report
N:\3293\Analysis\Synchro\10. YEAR 2050 +P PM.syn
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1021 70 98 490 74 77
Future Volume (veh/h) 1021 70 98 490 74 77
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1110 76 107 533 80 84
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1993 136 0 3016 106 112
Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.59 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 3468 231 0 5274 813 853
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 584 602 0 533 165 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1829 0 1702 1676 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 6.5 0.0 1.5 3.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 6.5 0.0 1.5 3.1 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.13 0.00 0.48 0.51
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1050 1080 0 3016 219 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.18 0.75 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2748 2829 0 9399 1115 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 13.5 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.5 4.5 0.0 3.1 18.7 0.0
LnGrp LOS AAAABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 1186 533 165
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.5 3.1 18.7
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 23.6 23.6 8.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 50.0 59.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 8.5 3.5 5.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.6 4.2 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.3
HCM 6th LOS A

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX I

VMT MITIGATION MEASURE SUMMARY AND CALCULATIONS

Max Project

15.0% 6.2%
Transportation Strategies Organization Chart
Date:

Max Project Max (Work) Project Max Project LLG Ref:

10.0% 6.2% 25% 0.0% 25% 0.0%
Project Name:

Max Project Max Project Max Project Max Project Max (Work) Project Max Project Project Settings:
10% 6.2% 5% 0.0% 20% 0.0% 10% 0.0% 25% 0.0% 25% 0.0%
Max Project Max Project Max Project Max Project Max Project Max Project

30.0% 6.2% 2.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 3.2% 0.00% 6.2% 0.0% 22.0% 0.0% Notes:

Max Max Project Max Project Max Project

10.0% 1.0% 0.00% 13.0% 0.0% 21.0% 0.0%
Max Project Max Project Max Project Max Project Max Project

30.0% 0.0% 12.7% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0%
Max Project Max Project Max Project

20.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.00% 20.0% 0.0%
Max Project

24.6% 0.0%
Max Project Max Project

1.2% 0.00% 5.5% 0.0%
Max Project

4.0% 0.0%
Max Project Max Project

21.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%
Max Project

15.8% 0.0%
Max Project

13.4% 0.0%
Max Project

63.0% 0.0%
Max Project

19.7% 0.0%
Max Project

7.7% 0.0%
School Bus Program
(TRT‐13)
Hallmark Barham SP
Traffic Calming
(SDT‐2)
Transit Frequency/Speed
(TST‐4) Park and Ride Lots
(RPT‐4)
Parking Supply Limits
(PDT‐1)
Unbundled Parking Costs
(PDT‐2) Transit Access Improvements
(TST‐2)
Vehicles
Bike Share Program
(TRT‐12)
‐Measures shown in green are utilized
Suburban
without Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Network
Ride Share Programs
(TRT‐3)
CTR Program Voluntary
(TRT‐1) Electrify Loading Docks/Idling‐Reduction
Systems
VT‐1
3/17/2021
3‐20‐3293
Mixed‐Use
(LUT‐3)
Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles
VT‐2
Location Efficiency1
(LUT‐2)
Expand Transit Network
(TST‐3) Contributions to Transportation
Infrastructure
(RPT‐3)
Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles
VT‐3
CTR Program Required
(TRT‐2) Traffic Flow Improvement
(RPT‐2)
Price On‐Street Parking
(PDT‐3)
Residential Area Parking Permits
(PDT‐4)
NEV Network
(SDT‐3)
Non‐Motorized Zones
(SDT‐4)
Multi‐Unit Residential Bike Parking
(SDT‐7)
End of Trip facilities
(TRT‐5)
Preferential Parking Permit
(TRT‐8)
CTR Marketing
(TRT‐7)
Employer Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle
(TRT‐11)
Proximity to Bike Path/Bike Lane
(LUT‐8)
Electric Vehicle Parking
(SDT‐8)
Employee Parking Cash‐Out
(TRT‐15)
School Pool Program
(TRT‐10)
Destination Accessibility
(LUT‐4)
Bike Parking Near Transit
(TST‐5)
Workplace Parking Pricing
(TRT‐14)
Transit Accessibility
(LUT‐5)
Local Shuttles
(TST‐6)
Alt. Work Schedule & Telecommute
(TRT‐6)
Car Share Program
(TRT‐9)Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
(SDT‐9)
Design
(LUT‐9)
Bike Lane Street Design (On‐Site)
(SDT‐5)
Affordable Housing
(LUT‐6)
Non‐Auto Corridor
(LUT‐7)
Transit Fare Subsidy
(TRT‐4)
Non‐Residential Bike Parking
(SDT‐6)
Global cap for road pricing needs
further study
Transportation Measures (four categories) Cross‐Category Max Re duction (all VMT) Transportation Measures (five subcategories) Global Maximum Reduction (all VMT) Pedestrian Network
(SDT‐1)
Land Use / Location Neighborhood / Site Enhancement Parking Polic y / Pricing Transit System Improvements Rapid Bus Transit System
(TST‐1)
Area/Cordon Pricing
(RPT‐1)
Max Reduction = 15% Overall;
Work VMT = 25%
School VMT = 65%
Max Reduction = 25%
Increase Density
(LUT‐1)
Commute Trip Reduction
(Assumes mixed use) Road Pricing Management
General Notes:

A. Strategies in bold text are primary strategies with reportedVMT reductions. Non‐bolded strategies are support or grouped strategies.

Footnotes:

1. This measure is not intended as a separate strategy but rather a cap for all land use/locations strategies.

I
:::::===========: :::::===========: :::::===========: :::::===========: :::::===========: :::::===========: :::::===========: 1-----------1 Section: 3.1.1 Increase Density
Measure: LUT‐1
Utilize:

VMT Reduction Utilized (Project minus TAZ 1026) 6.2%
Section: 3.1.1 Increase Density (TAZ 1026)
Measure: LUT‐1 Min 0.8%
Utilize: Max 30.0%
Number of Housing Units or Jobs per Acre 7.03
Unit Housing Units per Acre
A Percent Increase in Housing Units or Jobs per Acre [not to exceed 500%] ‐7% B Elasticity of VMT with respect to density 0.07
VMT Reduction = A x B [not to exceed 30%] ‐0.5%
VMT Reduction 0.0%
Section: 3.1.1 Increase Density (Project)
Measure: LUT‐1 Min 0.8%
Utilize: Max 30.0%
Number of Housing Units or Jobs per Acre 14.30
Unit Housing Units per Acre
A Percent Increase in Housing Units or Jobs per Acre [not to exceed 500%] 88% B Elasticity of VMT with respect to density 0.07
VMT Reduction = A x B [not to exceed 30%] 6.2%
VMT Reduction 6.2%
-
0 -
-
0 -
-
0 -
yr mgra lu lu_description plu plu_description acres hs_s f hs_mf hs_mh emp_adj hotel_roo mmgra lu lu_descrip tplu plu_descri pacres hs_s f hs_mf hs_mh emp_adj hotel_roo m 2020 19196 9101 Vacant and Undeveloped Land 4114 Parking Lot ‐ Surfa ce 3.684 00000 19196 9101 Vacant an d 4114 Parking Lo t 3.684 00000 2020 19196 7606 Landscape Open Spac e 7606 Landscape Open Sp 0.096 00000 19196 7606 Landscape 7606 Landscape 0.096 00000 2020 19196 103 Mobile Home Park 1300 Mobile Home Park 103.587 0 0 691 0 0 1 9196 103 Mobile Ho 1300 Mobile Ho 103.587 0 0 691 0 0 2020 19196 4118 Road Right of Way 4118 Road Right of Way 0.889 00000 19196 4118 Road Righ t 4118 Road Righ t 0.889 00000 2020 19196 4119 Other Transportation 4114 Parking Lot ‐ Surfac e 0.355 00000 19196 4119 Other Tra n 4114 Parking Lo t 0.355 00000 2020 19196 4112 Freeway 4112 Freeway 16.071 00000 19196 4112 Freeway 4112 Freeway 16.071 00000 2020 19201 101 Single Family Detached 1110 Single Family Detac 6.542 1 10000 19201 101 Single Fa m 1110 Single Fa m 6.542 11 0000 2020 19201 9101 Single Family Residential Without Units 1190 Single Family Reside 0.634 00000 19201 9101 Single Fa m 1190 Single Fa m 0.634 00000 2020 19201 1000 Spaced Rural Residential 1000 Spaced Rural Resid e 5.247 20000 19201 1000 Spaced Ru r 1000 Spaced Ru r 5.247 20000 2020 19201 6102 Religious Facility 6102 Religious Facility 1.744 00000 19201 6102 Religious F 6102 Religious F 1.744 00000 2020 19242 4118 Road Right of Way 4118 Road Right of Way 1.294 00000 19242 4118 Road Righ t 4118 Road Righ t 1.294 00000 2020 19242 9101 Vacant and Undeveloped Land 9700 Mixed Use 11.466 00000 19242 9101 Vacant an d 9700 Mixed Use 11.466 00000 2020 19242 101 Single Family Multiple‐Units 1120 Single Family Multi p 9.557 50 0000 19242 101 Single Fa m 1120 Single Fa m 9.557 50 0000 2020 19247 101 Single Family Detached 1110 Single Family Detac 10.938 1 0 30000 19247 101 Single Fa m 1110 Single Fa m 10.938 103 0000 2020 19247 7603 Open Space Park or Preserve 7603 Open Space Park or 1 5.652 00000 19247 7603 Open Spa c 7603 Open Spa c 15.652 00000 2020 19247 4118 Road Right of Way 4118 Road Right of Way 7.491 00000 19247 4118 Road Righ t 4118 Road Righ t 7.491 00000 2020 19247 7606 Landscape Open Spac e 7606 Landscape Open Sp 3.16 00000 19247 7606 Landscape 7606 Landscape 3.16 00000 2020 19249 7607 Residential Recreation 7607 Residential Recreat i 3.668 00000 19249 7607 Residentia 7607 Residentia 3.668 00000 2020 19249 101 Single Family Detached 1110 Single Family Detac 5.921 5 70000 19249 101 Single Fa m 1110 Single Fa m 5.921 57 0000 2020 19249 4118 Road Right of Way 4118 Road Right of Way 2.577 00000 19249 4118 Road Righ t 4118 Road Righ t 2.577 00000 2020 19249 7606 Landscape Open Spac e 7606 Landscape Open Sp 1.355 00000 19249 7606 Landscape 7606 Landscape 1.355 00000

ACRES DU DU/ACRE FACTOR ACRES DU DU/ACRE
1110 Single Family Detac 6.542 11 1.68 18.49587 10.56 151 14.30 1120 Single Family Multi
p 9.557 50 5.23 261.5884 2.8 151 53.93
1110 Single Family Detac 10.938 103 9.42 969.9214
1110 Single Family Detac 5.921 57 9.63 548.7249
Mobile Home Park 103.587 691 6.67 4609.468
TOTAL 136.545 912 6408.199
WEIGHTED AVERAGE DU/ACRE 7.03
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: TAZ 1026 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: PROJECT Land Uses included in the TAZ 1026 of the SANDAG Series 13 Year 2020 Travel Demand Model Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures
A Resource for Local Government
to Assess Emission Reductions from
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures

August, 2010
dE=dQ-dW
dS=dQ/T
S=klog[
(E)]
CO2 = VMT x EFrunning
[T242001 x (1 - R2001-2005) x (1 - R2005-2008)] +
NT24
co

CALIFORNIA
AIR

POLLUTION

CONTROL

OFFICERS

ASSOCIATION
Section Category Page
#
Measure
#

3.0 Transportation
155

3.1 Land Use/Location 155

3.1.1 Increase Density 155 LUT-1

3.1.2 Increase Location Efficiency 159 LUT-2

3.1.3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) 162 LUT-3

3.1.4 Increase Destination Accessibility 167 LUT-4

3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility 171 LUT-5

3.1.6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 176 LUT-6

3.1.7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor 179 LUT-7

3.1.8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane 181 LUT-8

3.1.9 Improve Design of Development 182 LUT-9

3.2 Neighborhood/Site Enhancements 186

3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 186 SDT-1

3.2.2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures 190 SDT-2

3.2.3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network 194 SDT-3

3.2.4 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones 198 SDT-4

3.2.5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) 200 SDT-5

3.2.6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects 202 SDT-6

3.2.7 Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects 204 SDT-7

3.2.8 Provide Electric Vehicle Parking 205 SDT-8

3.2.9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails 206 SDT-9

3.3 Parking Policy/Pricing 207

3.3.1 Limit Parking Supply 207 PDT-1

3.3.2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost 210 PDT-2

3.3.3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 213 PDT-3

3.3.4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits 217 PDT-4

3.4 Commute Trip Reduction Programs 218

3.4.1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary 218 TRT-1

3.4.2 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring
223 TRT-2

3.4.3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs 227 TRT-3

3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 230 TRT-4

3.4.5 Provide End of Trip Facilities 234 TRT-5

3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 236 TRT-6

3.4.7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 240 TRT-7

3.4.8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program 244 TRT-8

3.4.9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 245 TRT-9

3.4.10 Implement a School Pool Program 250 TRT-10

3.4.11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 253 TRT-11

3.4.12 Implement Bike-Sharing Programs 256 TRT-12

3.4.13 Implement School Bus Program 258 TRT-13

3.4.14 Price Workplace Parking 261 TRT-14

3.4.15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” 266 TRT-15

Section Category Page
#
Measure
#

3.5 Transit System Improvements 270

3.5.1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System 270 TST-1

3.5.2 Implement Transit Access Improvements 275 TST-2

3.5.3 Expand Transit Network 276 TST-3

3.5.4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 280 TST-4

3.5.5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit 285 TST-5

3.5.6 Provide Local Shuttles 286 TST-6

3.6 Road Pricing/Management 287

3.6.1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing 287 RPT-1

3.6.2 Improve Traffic Flow 291 RPT-2

3.6.3 Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects
297 RPT-3

3.6.4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots 298 RPT-4

3.7 Vehicles 300

3.7.1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems 300 VT-1

3.7.2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles 304 VT-2

3.7.3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles 309 VT-3

Transportation
CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4
MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location

155 LUT-1

3.0 Transportation

3.1 Land Use/Location

3.1.1 Increase Density
Range of Effectiveness: 0.8 – 30.0% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore a 0.8 – 30.0% reduction in GHG emissions.

Measure Description:

Designing the Project with increased densities, where allowed by the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance reduces GHG emissions associated with traffic in several ways. Density is usually measured in terms of persons, jobs, or dwellings per unit area.

Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. This strategy also provides a foundation for implementation of many other strategies which would benefit from increased densities.

For example, transit ridership increases with density, which justifies enhanced transit service.

The reductions in GHG emissions are quantified based on reductions to VMT. The relationship between density and VMT is described by its elasticity. According to a recent study published by Brownstone, et al. in 2009, the elasticity between density and VMT is 0.12. Default densities are based on the typical suburban densities in North America which reflects the characteristics of the ITE Trip Generation Manual data used in the baseline estimates.

Measure Applicability:
x Urban and suburban context
o Negligible impact in a rural context
x Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and m ixed-use projects

Baseline Method:

See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

CO2 = VMT x EFrunning
Where:

VMT = vehicle miles
traveled
E F
running = emission factor
for running emissions
Transportation
CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4
MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location

156 LUT-1

Inputs:

The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:
x Number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre

Mitigation Method:
% VMT Reduction = A * B [not to exceed 30%]
Where:

A = Percentage increase in housing units per acre or jobs per job acre33 = (number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre – number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) / (number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) For small and medium sites (less than ½ mile in radius) the calculation of housing and jobs per acre should be performed for the development site as a whole, so that the analysis does not erroneously attribute trip reduction benefits to measures that simply shift jobs and housing within the site with no overall increase in site density. For larger sites, the analysis should address the development as several ½-mile-radius sites, so that shifts from one area to another would increase the density of the receiving area but reduce the density of the donating area, resulting in trip generation rate decreases and increases, respectively, which cancel one another.

B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to density (from literature)

Detail:
x A: [not to exceed 500% increase]
o If housing: (Number of housing units per acre – 7.6) / 7.6 (See Appendix C for detail)
o If jobs: (Number of jobs per acre – 20) / 20
(See Appendix C for detail)
x B: 0.07 (Boarnet and Handy 2010)

Assumptions:

Data based upon the following references:
x B oarnet, Marlon and Handy, Susan. 2010. “DRAFT Policy Brief on the Impacts of Residential Density Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature.” http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm
; Table 1.

33 This value should be checked first to see if it exceeds 500% in which case A = 500%.

Transportation
CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4
MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location

157 LUT-1

Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions34
CO2e 1.5-30% of running
PM 1.5-30% of running
CO 1.5-30% of running
NOx 1.5-30% of running
SO2 1.5-30% of running
ROG 0.9-18% of total

Discussion:

The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in density versus the typical suburban residential and employment densities in North America (referred to as “ITE densities”). These densities are used as a baseline to mirror those densities reflected in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT.

There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of housing units or jobs per acre (variable A) and a cap of 30% on % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing residential density by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as density). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.

Example:

Sample calculations are provided below for housing:

Low Range % VMT Reduction (8.5 housing units per acre)
= (8.5 – 7.6) / 7.6 *0.07 = 0.8%
High Range % VMT Reduction (60 housing units per acre)

9.66.7 6.760 or 690% Since greater than 500%, set to 500%

= 500% x 0.07 = 0.35 or 35% Since greater than 30%, set to 30%

34 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

Transportation
CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4
MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1 Land Use / Location

158 LUT-1

Sample calculations are provided below for jobs:

Low Range % VMT Reduction (25 jobs per acre)
= (25 – 20) / 20 *0.12 = 3%
High Range % VMT Reduction (100 jobs per acre)
420
20100 or 400%
=400% x 0.12 = 0.48 or 48% Since greater than 30%, set to 30%

Preferred Literature:
x -0.07 = elasticity of VMT with respect to density

Boarnet and Handy’s detailed review of existing literature highlighted three individual studies that used the best available methods for analyzing data for individual households. These studies provided the following elasticities: -0.12 - Brownstone (2009), -0.07 – Bento (2005), and -0.08 – Fang (2008). To maintain a conservative estimate of the impacts of this strategy, the lower elasticity of -0.07 is used in the calculations.

Alternative Literature:
x -0.05 to -0.25 = elasticity of VMT with respect to density

The TRB Special Report 298 literature suggests that doubling neighborhood density across a metropolitan area might lower household VMT by about 5 to 12 percent, and perhaps by as much as 25 percent, if coupled with higher employment concentrations, significant public transit improvements, mixed uses, and other supportive demand management measures.

Alternative Literature References:

TRB, 2009. Driving and the Built Environment, Transportation Research Board Special Report 298. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr298.pdf . Accessed March 2010. (p. 4)
Other Literature Reviewed:

None

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
City of San Marcos, CA
November 16, 2020

Attachment C: VMT Mitigation

MEMORANDUM
Date: October 9, 2020 Project #24296
To: City of San Marcos
From: Michael Sahimi
Project: City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation
Subject: VMT Mitigation Measures
With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743 in 2013, and the adopt ion of the City’s updated transportation impact analysis guidelines in 2020, the basis for measuring sig nificant transportation impacts for development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has shifted from level of service (LOS) and automobile del ay to vehicle miles traveled (V MT). This shift in focus from reducing impact to drivers to reducing the impact of driving better aligns with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and encourage infill development and active transportation.

When projects under CEQA review are found to result in significant impacts to the environment, the lead agency must consider mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below significant levels. With the shift away from LOS, delay, and vehicular capacity metrics and impact thresholds to VMT thresholds, mitigating significant impacts now requires focusing on measure s to shorten vehicle trip distances or reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips (in favor of carpooling, taking public transit, bicycling, walking, and other modes), since VMT in essence is a function of the number of vehicle trips and their associated trip lengths. Whereas previous LOS-related mitigation measures focus ed on expanding roadway facilities primarily for vehicles, VMT-reducing mitigation measures can in clude modifying project characteristics, implementing on- or off-site improvements to transit, pedestria n and bicycle facilities, parking management strategies, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to either reduce or shorten vehicular trips. In particular, TDM can reduce travel b y single-occupancy vehicles by expanding traveler choices and encouraging ridesharing, carpooling, bicyc ling, walking, and riding transit. TDM strategies are among the most effective at reducing VMT impacts for land development projects at the project level.

This memorandum documents VMT mitigation strategies that Kittelson has determined can be applicable to projects in the City of San Marcos, based on a review of relevant literature and research. The selected strategies, as well as the applicable VMT reduction percentages and other attributes, are primarily based on a review of the guidance published by the California Air Pol lution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in August 2010 ( Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigat ion Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Red uctions from Greenhouse Gas Mi tigation Measures). This resource forms the basis for much of the TDM and VMT mitigation research and policymaking in the state. The I~ KITTELSON
~ &ASSOCIATES
750 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 410
ORANGE, CA 92868
P 714.468.1997
City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation Project #24296 October 9, 2020 Page 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
recommendations in this memo are also based on more recent info rmation, such as recent research published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in June 2019 (Mobility Management Guidebook and Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool – Design Document), California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2014, Western Riverside Council of Go vernments (WRCOG) in March 2019, and City of San Jose in February 2018.

VMT mitigation measures that can be applicable to projects in t he City are provided in Table 1.

Information provided in the table includes the following:
x Tier: Mitigation measures can fall within one of two categories – P roject Tier (strategies that would be implemented at a projec t site) and City/Community Tier (strategies that would be implemented at a community or citywide scale).
x Measure Category: Measures consist of multiple categories including commute strategies (aimed at employee trips), parking policies and programs (can apply to multiple land use and trip types), transit improvements (can includ e networkwide service and/or fa re changes), neighborhood enhancements (to improve multimo dal connectivity), and land use and location strategies (involve project location and land use mix).
x Description: A detailed description is included for each measure, includin g requirements to successfully implement the measure. In addition, some measures may overlap and should not be analyzed together as part of a mitigation program; this information is also included. x Range of Reductions: The maximum allowable reduction per each measure is provided. x Land Use Applicability : The applicable land use for each measure (primarily consistin g of residential, office/employment, and retail) is provided. It is important to note that some m e a s u r e s m a y n o t b e a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l p r o j e c t t y p e s ; f o r e x a m p le , c o m m u t e t r i p r e d u c t i o n measures cannot be applied to residential projects.
x Implementation Body: The appropriate implementation body or bodies are included fo r each measure. For example, some measures are under the purview of the City or local transit agencies such as NCTD. Physical on-site i mprovements are generally implemented by the site developer.

Programs or other continuous measures would generally be implem ented by tenants or other bodies (such as homeowners associations).
x Source: For each measure, the source for the appropriate methodology and VMT reduction formula is included.

It is important to note that reductions between multiple measures are not additive, and the sum of VMT reductions across measures must be dampened using the following formula per CAPCOA:

Total VMT Reduction % = 1-(1-A)*(1-B)*(1-C)*…
Where A, B, and C represent the reduction percentages from individual strategies This calculation should be applied within each category, and then across all five categories to obtain the total VMT reduction percentage f or a project undergoing VMT mit igation. For example, if an applicant estimates reductions from four mitigation measures (5% from Lan d Use and Location: Increase Site City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation Project #24296 October 9, 2020 Page 3
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Density, 8% from Land Use and Location: Major Transit Center Ac cessibility, 10% from Parking Management Strategies: Parking Supply Limits, and 3% from Parki ng Management Strategies: Parking Pricing), then the calculations would be as follows:

Total Land Use and Location Strategies Reduction % = 1-(1-5%)*(1-8%) = 12.6% Total Parking Management Strategies Reduction % = 1-(1-10%)*(1-3%) = 12.7% Total Global VMT Reduction % = 1-(1-12.6%)*(1-12.7%) = 23.7% In addition, it is important to note that this is a limit to the amount of VMT reduction that can be applied to a development project. Within the City of San Marcos, with i ts suburban land use and transportation context, CAPCOA indicates that the maximum feasible total reduc tion combining all measures is 15%.

There are also maximum feasible reductions within and across th e five mitigation categories; these are indicated in Table 2. Care shoul d be taken that any calculated VMT reductions do not exceed these maximums. In the example above, in a suburban setting the Land Use and Location strategies reduction of 12.6% would be capped at 5%, and the total reduction would be capped at 15%.

At this time, several VMT-reducing measures are already require d for new developmen ts by the City’s Municipal Code, which should be considered project features to be applied during a project’s VMT impact assessment and should not be used as part of mitigation calculations:
x Chapter 20.340.050 requires trip reduction measures for all maj or non-residential development projects and the non-residential portions of mixed-use development projects that exceed 25,000 square feet of gross floor area. Requirements include preferent ial carpool/vanpool parking, passenger loading areas, and shower or locker facilities. Developments that provide more shower and storage locker facilities or secure bicycle parking than re quired may reduce their parking requirement.
x Chapter 20.340.090 requires bicycle parking spaces in complianc e with the minimum requirements listed in the Municipal Code.
iCommute (www.icommutesd.com) is the transportation demand mana gement program for San Diego County. It provides valuable resources and assistance that can be utilized by devel opers and tenants looking to implement TDM programs. iCommute has an employer ser vices program which provides assistance and tools to help organizations design and implement commuter programs. In addition, iCommute provides the following items:
x information about carpool services and a carpool incentive pilot program x subsidized vanpool program and transit passes
x regional support for biking
x the Guaranteed Ride Home program
x information about teleworking
x bike and pedestrian safety support for schools
City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation Project #24296 October 9, 2020 Page 4
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Table 1: Applicable VMT Reduction Strategies
Tier and
Category
Mitigation
Measure
Description Maximum VMT
Reduction
Land Use
Applicability
Implementation
Body/Method
Source
Project Tier:

Land Use and
Location
Increase Site
Density
This measure increases the density of households and
employment per acre for the project site over what was used in the initial project VMT estimation. Density can be measured in terms of jobs, residents, employees, or dwelling units per unit area. Floor area ratio may be used as a proxy for employment, when employment is not known, or when considering non-office commercial developments.

Up to 30% Residential,
Office, Retail
Developer, City CAPCOA
(1.1)
Increase Site
Diversity
This measure involves improving the mix of uses and
jobs/housing balance within a project or a planning area, incorporating a range of complementary land uses that provide a balanced development approach relative to the surrounding neighborhood and encoura
ge shorter trips and transportation
alternatives.

Up to 30% Residential,
Office, Retail
Developer, City SANDAG
(2B)
Major Transit
Center
Accessibility
This measure locates a project within half a mile or a ten minute walk of a major transit center, defined as a rail transit station or a bus rapid transit station, but can be any transit stop with frequent service (5 to 15 minute headways) and significant transfer opportunities to other transit routes.

Residential and commercial centers designed around rail and bus stations are known as Transit-Oriented Development and contain bike and pedestrian access.

Up to 14.4% Residential,
Office, Retail
Developer, City SANDAG
(2A)
Integrate
Affordable
Housing
This measure incorporates a higher proportion of affordable housing within the residential portion of a project, subdivision, or a planning area. Income has a statistically significant effect on whether someone will drive a single-occupant vehicle to work or for other trip purposes.

Up to 32.5% of
home VMT
Residential,
Office, Retail
Developer, City San Jose
(PC-003)
Project Tier:

Commute
Demand
Management
Strategies
Voluntary
Employer
Commute
Program

This measure consists of a variety of measures to reduce single- occupant vehicle commuting through an employer, such as carpool/vanpool programs, subsidized transit passes,
preferential carpool parking, bicycle facilities, and flexible work schedules. Unlike a mandatory program, this strategy does not require monitoring, reporting, or performance standards.

Note, this measure cannot be analyzed in combination with a mandatory employer commute program. In addition, separate commute demand management measures should not be
analyzed if already included under this measure.

Up to 6.2% of
work VMT
Office, Retail Tenant SANDAG
(1A)
City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation Project #24296 October 9, 2020 Page 5
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Tier and
Category
Mitigation
Measure
Description Maximum VMT
Reduction
Land Use
Applicability
Implementation
Body/Method
Source
Mandatory
Employer
Commute
Program
This measure consists of a variety of measures to reduce single- occupant vehicle commuting through an employer, such as carpool/vanpool programs, subsidized transit passes,
preferential carpool parking, bicycle facilities, and flexible work schedules. Unlike a voluntary program, this strategy requires regular monitoring, reporting, and performance standards.

Note, this measure cannot be analyzed in combination with a voluntary employer commute program. In addition, separate commute demand management measures should not be
analyzed if already included under this measure.

Up to 26% of
work VMT
Office, Retail Tenant SANDAG
(1B)
Employer
Carpool/Vanpool
Program
This measure consists of supporting ride sharing through more convenient pick up/drop off locations, parking locations during workdays, and subsidies. Employers can encourage vanpooling and carpooling by providing ride-matching assistance, priority parking for carpool/vanpool vehicles, incentives, and subsidies.

Up to 7.1% of
work VMT
Office, Retail Tenant (in
partnership with
City or other
agencies)
SANDAG
(1E)
Employer Transit
Subsidy
This measure consists of employer-provided subsidized or discounted daily or monthly transit passes to employees; the employer would pay for a portion or the entirety of an
employee’s transit costs.

Up to 10.9% of
work VMT
Office, Retail Tenant (in
partnership with
transit agencies)
SANDAG
(1D)
Employer
Telecommute
and Alternative
Work Schedules
This measure involves encouraging and supporting employers and employees interested in telecommuting or working
alternative work schedules. It involves marketing, equipment, and infrastructure to support telecommuting. A telework program enables employees to work from home or a remote location one or more days per week. Alternative work schedules are usually compressed work weeks that allow workers to reduce the number of commute trips they make.

Up to 5.5% of
work VMT
Office Tenant CAPCOA
(4.6)/San
Jose (TP-
008)
School Bus
Program/ School
Pool Program
This measure consists of two types of programs: supporting expanded school bus programs, or organizing groups of
volunteer parents to provide shared rides to school.

Developers and the City can work with school districts to expand school bus services in the project area and local community; alternatively, school carpool programs can fill service gaps for school buses.

Up to 6.3% of
school VMT
(school bus); Up
to 15.8% of
school VMT
(school pool)
Residential Developer, City CAPCOA
(4.10/

4.13)
Project Tier:

Parking
Management
Strategies
Parking Cash Out This measure consists of providing cash to employees for not parking a vehicle on site, if free parking is provided for employees and is paid for by
the employer. The cash payment
would consist of the cash value of the space in lieu of the space itself. This measure can be used where free parking is prevalent and it is not feasible to directly charge for parking.

Up to 7.7% of
work VMT
Office, Retail Property
Manager,
Tenant

CAPCOA
(4.15)
City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation Project #24296 October 9, 2020 Page 6
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Tier and
Category
Mitigation
Measure
Description Maximum VMT
Reduction
Land Use
Applicability
Implementation
Body/Method
Source
Parking Pricing This measure consists of charging drivers directly for parking.

Parking pricing can be implemented on- or off-street. This measure can be implemented in several ways, including
implementing residential parking permit programs, unbundling parking costs from rent or property costs, charging for on-street parking, and charging for workplace parking.

Up to 7.5%

Residential,
Office, Retail
Property
Manager,
Tenant, City
SANDAG
(3A)
Parking Supply
Limits
This measure sets the amount of available on-site and on-street parking available at some level below current peak demand. This measure can be implemented in several ways, including
eliminating or reducing minimum parking requirements,
establishing maximum parking requirements, requiring shared parking between different uses, limiting parking to residents with permits, and establishing parking time limits.

Up to 12.5% Residential,
Office, Retail
Developer, City CAPCOA
(3.1)
City/Community
Tier: Transit
Strategies
New Transit
Service and
Coverage

This measure involves expanding transit service in terms of areas and/or times of day being served, in order to better accommodate existing and future demand and encourage a shift away from driving. This can include creating new transit routes.

Up to 5.9% Residential,
Office, Retail
City, Transit
Agencies
SANDAG
(5A)
Reduce fares This measure consists of lowering transit fares in specific zones or across the transit system service area to make transit accessible to an increased number of users. Unlike the Employer Transit Subsidy, this measure is not limited to a single project site and reduces fares rather than providing discounts or subsidies.

Up to 1.2% Residential,
Office, Retail
City, Transit
Agencies
SANDAG
(5D)
Increased
Transit Service
Frequency
This measure consists of measures to increase the frequency of service on transit routes to improve the viability of taking public transit as an alternative to driving. Measures can be
implemented systemwide or on specific routes to reduce
headways and increase ridership by reducing travel times.

Up to 8.2% Residential,
Office, Retail
City, Transit
Agencies
SANDAG
(5B)
Increased
Transit Speed
and Reliability
This measure consists of roadway, traffic control, and other infrastructure improvements that expedite transit service and improve schedule adherence (reliability). Transit supportive treatments to increase transit vehicle speed and service reliability can include transit signal priority, bus-only signal phases, queue jumps, curb improvements to increase the speed of passenger loading, and dedicated bus lanes.

Up to 0.4% Residential,
Office, Retail
City, Transit
Agencies
SANDAG
(5C)
City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation Project #24296 October 9, 2020 Page 7
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Tier and
Category
Mitigation
Measure
Description Maximum VMT
Reduction
Land Use
Applicability
Implementation
Body/Method
Source
Microtransit
NEV Shuttle
Microtransit services use real-time ride-hailing, mobile tracking, and app-based payment to provide demand-based services to user; this can include services utilizing Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs). Microtransit services are flexible and can consist of point-to-point shuttles or first/last-mile shuttles connecting with major transit hubs to provide an alternative to short vehicle trips.

Up to 0.1% Residential,
Office, Retail
Property
Manager,
Tenant, City,
Transit Agencies
SANDAG
(5E)
City/Community
Tier:

Neighborhood
Circulation
Enhancements
Improved Street
Connectivity
This measure consists of strategies to improve street
connectivity by increasing the density of publicly accessible streets, resulting in shorter block lengths between intersections to shorten trip lengths to increase the comfort and connectivity of pedestrians and bicyclists.

Up to 6% Residential,
Office, Retail
Developer, City SANDAG
(4A)/San
Jose (MI-
003)
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facility
and Network
Improvements
This strategy improves the accessibility, convenience, and perceived safety of sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and
pedestrian/bicycle paths. Improvements to the pedestrian/ bicycle network include removing physical barriers, adding crossing infrastructure, widening sidewalks and bike lanes, and creating network links. This consists of three types of improvements:

x Pedestrian facility improvements (enhancing the
existing streetscape and adding crossing
improvements)
x Bikeway network expansion (increasing the existing
network of on- or off-street bikeways)
x Bike facility improvements (implementing new
bikeways)
Up to 1.4%
(pedestrian
facility
improvements);
Up to 5.0%
(bikeway
network
expansion); Up
to 0.3%
(individual bike
facility
imp
rovement)
Residential,
Office, Retail
Developer, City SANDAG
(4B/4C/
4D)
Support Bike
Share
This measure consists of supporting bike sharing through parking facilities and subsidies. This can include partnering with docked and dockless bicycle, e-bike, and scooter share
companies to provide on-demand active transportation options to residents and employees. Employers and cities can support these programs by providing bicycle parking, marketing bike share services, and subsidizing user cost.

Up to 0.1% Residential,
Office, Retail
Property
Manager/HOA,
Tenant,
Developer, City
SANDAG
(4E)
Car Share This measure consists of supporting car sharing through priority parking facilities and membership discounts and subsidies. This measure can help reduce automobile ownership. Types of
carshare programs can include one-way (free-floating) programs that allow users to leave their vehicle at their final destination (without returning it to the origin) while roundtrip programs require users to return the vehicle to a designated location.

Up to 0.7% Residential,
Office, Retail
Property
Manager/HOA,
Tenant,
Developer, City
SANDAG
(4F)
City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation Project #24296 October 9, 2020 Page 8
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Tier and
Category
Mitigation
Measure
Description Maximum VMT
Reduction
Land Use
Applicability
Implementation
Body/Method
Source
Traffic Calming This measure consists of strategies to reduce the speeds of vehicle traffic on the street and improve the lateral separation between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles; such strategies increase bicyclist and pedestrian comfort and can encourage a shift away from driving for shorter trips. Traffic calming strategies can include:
x Narrowing roadways
x Vertical deflection such as speed bumps, humps, or
tables
x Horizontal deflection
x Enforcement and education
x Lowering speed limits
Up to 1% Residential,
Office, Retail
Developer, City CAPCOA
(2.2)
Community-
Based Travel
Planning
This measure consists of an agency- or HOA-sponsored TDM program; unlike the Voluntary Employer Commute Program and Mandatory Employer Commute Program, this measure is
focused on residents. The organization responsible for operating the TDM program utilizes advisors to engage residents and provide information, incentives, and support to encourage residents and visitors to use alternative modes of travel. It may or may not be monitored with reduction targets.

Up to 2% Residential Property
Manager/HOA,
Tenant,
Developer, City
SANDAG
(4G)
NEV Network This measure consists of establishing a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) network. NEVs are low speed vehicles which are electric powered, offering an alternative to traditional vehicle trips and can legally be used on roadways with speed limits of 35 MPH or less (unless specifically restricted). Creating an NEV network requires implementing the necessary infrastructure, including NEV parking, charging facilities, striping, signage, and educational tools.

Up to 13% Residential Property
Manager/HOA,
Tenant,
Developer, City
CAPCOA
(2.3)
Cordon Pricing This strategy consists of levying a toll on motor vehicles seeking to enter a specific area, such as a downtown area. The cordon pricing system would be set up to cover all entry points to the area, with funds potentially being utilized to improve
multimodal facilities in the area.

Up to 22% Residential,
Office, Retail
City CAPCOA
(6.1)

City of San Marcos SB 743 Implementation Project #24296 October 9, 2020 Page 9
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Table 2: Maximum VMT Reductions (Suburban Areas)
Max Category Reductions
Max Cross-
Category
Reductions
Global Max
Reduction
Project Tier
Commute Demand Management Strategies
(including Parking Cash Out)
25% (work
VMT)
15% overall; 25%
work VMT; 65%
school VMT
15% without
NEV; 20%
with NEV (all
VMT)
Parking Management Strategies
(excluding Parking Cash Out) 20%
10% without
NEV; 15% with
NEV (all VMT)
Land Use and Location 5%
City/
Community
Tier
Transit Strategies 10%
Neighborhood Circulation Enhancements
(excluding Cordon Pricing)
5% without
NEV; 15%
with NEV
Cordon Pricing 22%
Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) Note: NEV signifies the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle network mitigation measure, which is within the Neighborhood Circulation Enhancements category.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX J

DRIVEWAY SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE

• \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\
50 0

GRAPHIC SCALE
50 100 150
;;.::;.....::•oc1~
!
INTERSECTION stGHr DISTANCE

BARHAM DRIVE
s
•
u z -PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING
3890 Ruffin Road. Suite 1 ea
San Diego, Ca. SE2123
858-680-1141
BEiB-6SDB1 57 Fex
c
I
' g
'
I
ti
~
0 2
-' ~
I
~
~ -" 0
I
~~~~:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J ~ OJ/24/2021

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3293 Hallmark Barham Specific Plan

APPENDIX K

FIRETRUCK TURNING TEMPLATES

Plotted: 3/10/2021 2:48 PM D:\75051 BARHAM DRIVE\03 DWG\EX\75052EX03 FIRE TRUCK TURN.DWG - rpowell ..

BARHAM DRIVE
SAN MARCOS, CA.
~~~~~ii£ ~=--:'------~=~~ ~ i~ --- -:.~
J
· .... ·-·-·-·-·
~u
r-~::----,
I

GRAPHIC SCALE
----------r-----1 I
·- -100 0 100 200 300
LEGEND

VEHICLE ACCESS

FIRE TRUCK
ACCESS

ACCESSIBLE PA TH

OF TRAVEL
---
• • • • • •
SB&I ■~

PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING
75052.35

San Marcos City CouncilMay 10, 2022

San Marcos City Council
May 10, 2022