Agenda packet — San Marcos City Council, September 8, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

664
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd.
.,,> -+ • 'f +- ' ""\ t ovement ~BL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 1i ti. 1i ti. 1i i.

Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 314 80 26 486 20 83 31
Future Volume (veh/h) 38 314 80 26 486 20 83 31
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/Mn 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 341 87 28 528 22 90 34 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 67 606 152 52 719 30 116 542
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2812 708 1781 3477 145 1781 1230
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 214 214 28 270 280 90 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1743 1781 1m 1844 1781 0 a Serve(g_s), s 1.8 8.5 8.7 1.2 11.2 11.3 3.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 8.5 8.7 1.2 11.2 11.3 3.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.08 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 383 375 52 368 382 116 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.56 0.57 0.54 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 124 691 678 133 695 722 236 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 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 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.6 27.7 27.8 37.9 29.4 29.4 36.4 0.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 1.3 1.4 8.5 2.8 2.8 10.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 3.6 3.7 0.6 4.9 5.1 2.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.4 29.0 29.2 46.5 32.2 32.2 46.8 0.0 LnGre LOS D C C D C C D A Approach Vol, veh/h 469 578 139 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 32.9 34.8 Approach LOS C C C imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 41.7 6.8 23.3 9.7 39.5 7.5 22.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 3.8 3.3 3.2 10.7 5.9 6.7 3.8 13.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.4 0.0 3.1 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.2 HCM 6th LOS C
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"
NBR
14 14
0 1.00

1.00 1870
15 0.92
2 239

0.44 543
49 1773

1.3 1.3

0.31 781

0.06 781

1.00 1.00 12.8

0.2 0.0 0.5

12.9 8
Existing AM
04/24/2018
'. i .I

SSL SST SB
1i t l'
38 155 133 38 155 133
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
41 168 145

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
67 772 654

0.04 0.41 0.41
1781 1870 1585
41 168 145
1781 1870 1585

1.8 4.6 4.7

1.00 1.00
67 772 654

0.61 0.22 0.22
148 772 654

1.00 1.00 1.00

37.6 15.0 15.0

8.8 0.6 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.0 1.7

46.4 15.7 15.8
D 8 8
354

19.3 8
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

665
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd.

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
Existing AM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

666
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Woodward St. & Vinelard Rd.
'f '- t I" '. !
t>vement WBL WBR NBT NBA SBL SB"Ji
Lane Configurations 'i '{' t ,, 'i t
Traffic Volume (vph) 259 4 122 64 1 299
Future Volume (vph) 259 4 122 64 1 299
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Ulil. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fri 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Said. Flow (pro!) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Said. Flow (eerm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 282 4 133 70 1 325
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 33 0 0
Lane Graue Flow (vehl 282 1 133 37 1 325
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prat NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 15.8 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 15.8 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.62
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 392 351 994 844 22 1146
vis Ratio Prat 0.07 0.00 c0.17
vis Ratio Perm c0.16 0.00 0.02
vie Ratio 0.72 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 25.6 21.6 8.3 7.9 34.7 6.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.6
Delay (s) 31.9 21.6 8.6 8.0 35.6 7.0
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 31.7 8.4 7.1
Approach LOS C A A
ntersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.2 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15
C Critical Lane Group
Lanikai Senior Apartments 0412312018 Baseline
8 16.5
A
Existing AM
0412412018
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

667
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Twin Oaks Vallel Rd. & Richmar Ave.
,> -+ -,. f ,.._ ' "\ t ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 'i f+ 'i f+ 'i tf+
Traffic Volume (veh/h} 135 6 74 13 3 5 47 534
Future Volume (veh/h) 135 6 74 13 3 5 47 534
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT} 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hnn 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 147 7 80 14 3 5 51 580
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 193 14 160 42 15 25 71 1979
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.58 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 129 1476 1781 630 1051 1781 3405
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 147 0 87 14 0 8 51 302
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hnn 1781 0 1605 1781 0 1681 1781 1777 a Serve(g_s}, s 7.3 0.0 4.7 0.7 0.0 0.4 2.6 7.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c}, s 7.3 0.0 4.7 0.7 0.0 0.4 2.6 7.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.63 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193 0 174 42 0 39 71 1032
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.00 0.20 0.72 0.29
Avail Cap(c_a}, veh/h 358 0 323 705 0 665 104 1032
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.4 0.0 38.3 43.7 0.0 43.6 43.2 9.6 Iner Delay (d2}, s/veh 6.1 0.0 2.2 4.6 0.0 2.5 12.8 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3},s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%},veh/ln 3.5 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.4 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 0.0 40.5 48.4 0.0 46.1 56.0 10.3 LnGre LOS D A D D A D E B
Approach Vol, veh/h 234 22 666
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.7 47.5 13.8
Approach LOS D D B
imer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc}, s 7.5 58.3 16.5 8.1 57.7 8.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 • 5.4 • 6.6 4.5 • 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 • 51 • 18 5.3 • 52 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1}, s 3.9 9.8 9.3 4.6 28.0 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.6 0.0 11.7 0.0
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS B
ates
• HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
,,.

NBA
32 32
0 1.00

1.00 1870
35 0.92
2 119

0.58 205
313
1833

7.8 7.8

0.11 1065

0.29 1065

1.00 1.00

9.6 0.7

0.0 3.1

10.3 B
Existing AM
04/24/2018
'1. i ✓ SBL SBT SB
'i tf+
34 1153 160
34 1153 160
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
37 1253 174

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
59 1802 249

0.03 0.57 0.57
1781 3136 433
37 707 720
1781 1777 1792

1.9 25.6 26.0

1.00 0.24
59 1021 1030

0.62 0.69 0.70
139 1021 1030

1.00 1.00 1.00

43.4 13.7 13.8

10.2 3.9 3.9

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 10.3 10.6

53.6 17.5 17.7
D B B
1464

18.5 B
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

668
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 04/24/2018 ,> _. "), 'f +- ' t I" ! .,.,, ovement EBL EBT !:BR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBA SBL SBT SB Lane Configurations 'i tt '{' 'i'i tt '{' 'i tt '{' 'i t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 478 50 636 798 105 12 54 430 89 366 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 478 50 636 798 105 12 54 430 89 366 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 520 54 691 867 114 13 59 0 97 398 82 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 56 669 298 701 1278 570 27 1192 104 1115 228 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.06 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2939 600 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 520 54 691 867 114 13 59 0 97 239 241 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1762 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 15.4 3.2 22.1 22.9 5.5 0.8 1.2 0.0 6.0 10.7 10.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 15.4 3.2 22.1 22.9 5.5 0.8 1.2 0.0 6.0 10.7 10.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 56 669 298 701 1278 570 27 1192 104 674 668 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.78 0.18 0.99 0.68 0.20 0.49 0.05 0.93 0.35 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 112 1122 500 701 1625 725 80 1192 104 674 668 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.2 42.8 37.8 44.0 30.1 24.5 54.2 24.9 0.0 52.0 24.7 24.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 14.3 2.0 0.3 30.2 0.8 0.2 13.3 0.1 0.0 65.6 1.5 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 6.9 1.3 12.3 9.8 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.0 4.6 4.8 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.4 44.8 38.1 74.2 30.9 24.7 67.5 25.0 0.0 117.5 26.1 26.2 LnGre LOS E D D E C C E C F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 613 1672 72 A 577 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.6 48.4 32.7 41.5 Approach LOS D D C D imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 45.2 27.0 27.7 6.1 50.1 8.0 46.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 *8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 8.0 3.2 24.1 17.4 2.8 12.9 4.4 24.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 7.2 ntersection Summa~
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.1 HCM 6th LOS D
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBA] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

669
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Twin Oaks Vallel Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd.
,> -+ .. f ~ ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT
Lane Configurations 'i'i ++ '{' 'i'i +~
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 499 284 444 532
Future Volume (veh/h) 177 499 284 444 532
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 192 542 309 483 578
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 244 813 363 526 1068
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3437
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 192 542 309 483 298
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777
a Serve(g_s), s 7.7 19.6 26.3 19.4 19.6
Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 7.7 19.6 26.3 19.4 19.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 813 363 526 552
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.92 0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 345 1033 461 532 612
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.5 49.5 52.1 58.9 40.3
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 1.1 11.8 20.8 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 8.9 11.7 10.0 8.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.3 50.6 63.9 79.8 41.1
LnGre LOS E D E E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1043 1091
Approach Delay, s/veh 58.5 58.2
Approach LOS E E
imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 65.1 26.0 39.5 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5
Max a Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 6.0 23.2 21.4 28.3 10.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.7 0.1 3.9 0.0
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 55.5
HCM 6th LOS E
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
' ""\ t WBR NBU. NBT
'i'i ++
28 203 383
28 203 383
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
30 221 416

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
55 257 1452

0.31 0.07 0.41
178 3456 3554
310 221 416
1838 1728 1777

19.7 8.9 11.1

0.10 1.00
571 257 1452

0.54 0.86 0.29
633 257 1452

1.00 1.00 1.00

40.3 64.5 27.9

0.8 24.1 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0

9.1 4.8 4.9

41.1 88.6 28.4
D F C
1041

37.9 D
6 7 8

60.6 14.4 51.0

7.5 4.5 7.2

53.1 14.1 48.6

49.7 9.7 21.7

2.3 0.2 4.0
I"
NBA
'{'
372
372
0 1.00

1.00 1870
404

0.92 2
889

0.41 1585
404
1585

21.2 21.2

1.00 889

0.45 889

1.00 1.00

18.2 1.7

0.0 8.2

19.9 B
Existing AM
04/24/2018
'. ! ~ SBL SBT SB
'i'i +~
92 883 249
92 883 249
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
100 960 271

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
146 1031 290

0.04 0.38 0.38
3456 2738 770
100 622 609
1728 1777 1732

4.0 47.4 47.7

1.00 0.44
146 669 652

0.68 0.93 0.93
213 669 652

1.00 1.00 1.00

66.6 42.2 42.3

5.6 21.3 22.4

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.9 24.6 24.3

72.2 63.5 64.7
E E E
1331

64.7 E
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

670
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Twin Oaks Valle~ Rd. & Borden Rd.
.,> -+ • 'f ~ ' ' t ovement EBL esr EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL: NBt Lane Configurations 'I tf+ 'I tf+ 'I tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 157 287 200 157 249 59 210 660
Future Volume (veh/h) 157 287 200 157 249 59 210 660
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 171 312 217 171 271 64 228 717
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 177 409 278 207 628 146 248 1378
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2025 1375 1781 2863 665 1781 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 171 273 256 171 166 169 228 717
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1623 1781 1777 1751 1781 1m Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 13.7 14.2 8.9 7.6 7.9 12.0 14.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 13.7 14.2 8.9 7.6 7.9 12.0 14.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.38 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 177 359 328 207 390 384 248 1378 V /C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.76 0.78 0.82 0.43 0.44 0.92 0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 177 600 548 350 769 757 248 1378
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.5 35.6 35.8 40.9 31.9 32.0 40.3 22.2 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 58.1 3.3 4.1 8.0 0.7 0.8 36.1 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.8 6.2 5.9 4.3 3.3 3.4 7.7 6.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 100.7 39.0 39.9 49.0 32.6 32.8 76.4 23.7 LnGre LOS F D D D C C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 700 506 1217
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.4 38.2 31.7
Approach LOS D D C
imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 42.4 15.5 25.8 17.7 35.8 13.9 27.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 7.1 16.7 10.9 16.2 14.0 18.2 11.1 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.6 0.3 3.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.1 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.7
HCM 6th LOS D
otes
• HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"
NBA
,,
250
250
0 1.00

1.00 1870
272

0.92 2
799

0.39 1585
272
1585

9.7 9.7

1.00 799

0.34 799

1.00 1.00

14.1 1.2

0.0 3.6

15.2 B
Existing PM
04/24/2018
'. ~ ✓ SBL SBT SB
"'i tt ,,
90 657 71
90 657 71
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
98 714 77

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
125 1132 505

0.07 0.32 0.32
1781 3554 1585
98 714 77
1781 1777 1585

5.1 16.2 3.3

1.00 1.00
125 1132 505

0.79 0.63 0.15
177 1132 505

1.00 1.00 1.00

43.4 27.5 23.1

14.0 2.7 0.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7 7.1 1.3

57.4 30.2 23.8
E C C
889

32.7 C
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

671
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd .
.,,> -+ -,. 'f +- ' "'\ t ovement EB!,. EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations .., t~ .., t~ ..,
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 439 56 11 312 30 70 92
Future Volume (veh/h) 131 439 56 11 312 30 70 92
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 142 477 61 12 339 33 76 100 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 128 666 85 26 500 48 98 706
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3171 404 1781 3274 317 1781 1543
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 142 266 272 12 183 189 76 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1m 1798 1781 1777 1813 1781 0 a Serve(g_s), s 5.5 10.6 10.7 0.5 7.4 7.5 3.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 10.6 10.7 0.5 7.4 7.5 3.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.17 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 373 378 26 271 277 98 0
V/C Ratio(X) 1.11 0.71 0.72 0.46 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 128 717 726 138 722 737 245 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.4 28.0 28.0 37.3 30.5 30.6 35.6 0.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 110.6 2.5 2.6 11.9 2.9 3.0 12.0 0.0 Initial a Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.3 4.6 4.7 0.3 3.3 3.4 1.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 146.0 30.5 30.6 49.2 33.4 33.5 47.5 0.0 LnGre LOS F C C D C C D A Approach Vol, veh/h 680 384 194 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.7 34.0 26.1 Approach LOS D C C imer - Assi ned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 41.7 5.6 22.2 8.7 39.7 10.0 17.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 3.2 4.9 2.5 12.7 5.2 4.5 7.5 9.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 2.1 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.4 HCM 6th LOS D
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"'
NBA
17 17
0 1.00

1.00 1870
18 0.92
2 127

0.46 278
118
1820

2.9 2.9

0.15 833

0.14 833

1.00 1.00 12.0

0.4 0.0

1.2 12.4
B
Existing PM
04/24/2018
'. ! .,.I

SBL SBT SB
.., t .,,
26 76 78 26 76 78
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
28 83 85

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
52 807 684

0.03 0.43 0.43
1781 1870 1585
28 83 85
1781 1870 1585

1.2 2.0 2.5 1.2 2.0 2.5

1.00 1.00
52 807 684

0.54 0.10 0.12
154 807 684

1.00 1.00 1.00

36.5 12.9 13.0

8.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.9

44.8 13.2 13.4
D B B
196

17.8 B
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

672
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd.

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
Existing PM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 0 Report

Page 1 ends

673
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Woodward St. & Vine~ard Rd.
'f ' t /"' ~ ! ovement WBL WBR NBT NBA SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 'i .,, t .,, 'i t
Traffic Volume (vph) 107 1 216 256 5 146
Future Volume (vph) 107 1 216 256 5 146
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (eerm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 116 1 235 278 5 159
ATOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 107 0 0
Lane Graue Flow (veh) 116 0 235 171 5 159
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prat NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 8.0 40.8 40.8 1.0 46.7
Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 8.0 40.8 40.8 1.0 46.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.62 0.62 0.02 0.70
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 213 191 1146 974 26 1312
v/s Ratio Prat c0.13 0.00 c0.09
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.00 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.00 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 25.6 5.6 5.5 32.3 3.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.6 0.2
Delay (s) 30.3 25.6 6.0 5.9 35.8 3.4
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 30.2 5.9 4.3
Approach LOS C A A
ntersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.3 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15
C Critical Lane Group
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
A

16.5 A
Existing PM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

674
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Twin Oaks Vallel Rd. & Richmar Ave.
.,> -+ .. 'f +- '- "'\ t
ovement EBL EiBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT
Lane Configurations 'I t+ 'I t+ 'I tt+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 189 7 68 20 5 0 113 991
Future Volume (veh/h) 189 7 68 20 5 0 113 991
Initial a (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 205 8 74 22 5 0 123 1077
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 246 22 200 48 50 0 98 1989
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 157 1452 1781 1870 0 1781 3539
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 0 82 22 5 0 123 541
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hAn 1781 0 1609 1781 1870 0 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.8 0.0 4.5 1.2 0.3 0.0 5.3 18.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.8 0.0 4.5 1.2 0.3 0.0 5.3 18.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 246 0 222 48 50 0 98 999
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.37 0.46 0.10 0.00 1.26 0.54
Avail Cap(c_a}, veh/h 337 0 305 664 697 0 98 999
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.6 0.0 37.8 46.3 45.9 0.0 45.7 13.3 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 12.2 0.0 1.0 6.9 0.9 0.0 175.8 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 7.1 7.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.7 0.0 38.8 53.2 46.8 0.0 221.4 15.4 LnGre LOS D A D D D A F B
Approach Vol, veh/h 287 27 1228
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.7 52.0 36.0
Approach LOS D D D
imer • Assi ned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 59.7 19.9 9.8 57.7 9.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 • 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 *18 5.3 * 52 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 4.1 20.5 12.8 7.3 22.7 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.8 0.5 0.0 9.2 0.1
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.1
HCM 6th LOS C
oles
• HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline ~ NBA 26 26 0 1.00 1.00 1870 28 0.92 2 52 0.56 92 564 1854 18.5 18.5 0.05 1042 0.54 1042 1.00 1.00 13.3 2.0 0.0 7.8 15.3 B Existing PM
04/24/2018
'. ~ ~ SBL SBT SB
'I tt+
37 888 153
37 888 153
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
40 965 166

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
61 1641 282

0.03 0.54 0.54
1781 3032 521
40 565 566
1781 1777 1777

2.1 20.7 20.7

1.00 0.29
61 962 962

0.66 0.59 0.59
131 962 962

1.00 1.00 1.00

46.1 14.9 14.9

11.5 2.6 2.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.1 8.5 8.5

57.6 17.5 17.5
E B B
1171

18.9 B
]
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

675
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 04/24/2018 .,> -+ • 'f ~ ' "" t I'" '. l ~ ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WB'f WBR NBL NBT NBA SBL SBT SB Lane Configurations 11 tt '{' 1111 tt '{' 11 tt '{' 11 t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 809 79 375 645 103 59 237 708 47 166 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 809 79 375 645 103 59 237 708 47 166 50 Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 132 879 86 408 701 112 64 258 0 51 180 54 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 107 989 441 483 1274 568 76 1212 66 909 265
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2714 791 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 879 86 408 701 112 64 258 0 51 116 118 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hnn 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1728 a Serve(g_s), s 7.0 27.7 4.8 13.4 18.4 5.7 4.2 6.0 0.0 3.3 5.4 5.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 27.7 4.8 13.4 18.4 5.7 4.2 6.0 0.0 3.3 5.4 5.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 989 441 483 1274 568 76 1212 66 595 579 V/C Ratio(X) 1.24 0.89 0.19 0.84 0.55 0.20 0.84 0.21 0.78 0.19 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 107 1065 475 666 1543 688 76 1212 99 595 579 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.9 40.4 32.1 49.0 29.9 25.9 55.5 27.3 0.0 55.7 27.6 27.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 163.4 8.9 0.2 7.2 0.4 0.2 53.0 0.4 0.0 19.1 0.7 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.0 13.2 1.9 6.3 7.9 2.2 3.0 2.6 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 218.3 49.3 32.3 56.1 30.3 26.0 108.5 27.7 0.0 74.8 28.3 28.5 LnGre LOS F D C E C C F C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1097 1221 322 A 285
Approach Delay, s/veh 68.3 38.5 43.8 36.7
Approach LOS E D D D
imer - Assi ned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 47.8 20.8 39.3 9.5 47.1 11.5 48.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 *8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 5.3 8.0 15.4 29.7 6.2 7.7 9.0 20.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.7 0.9 2.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.9 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.1
HCM 6th LOS D
ates
• HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBA] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

676
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Twin Oaks Valle:l Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd.
,> -+ ,. 'f +-
ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT
Lane Configurations 'f'i tt '{' 'i'i tft
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 272 677 327 387 548
Future Volume (veh/h) 272 677 327 387 548
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No
Adj Sat Flow, veM1/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 296 736 355 421 596
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 339 910 406 472 880
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 2987
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 296 736 355 421 354
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1m 1585 1728 1777
a Serve(g_s), s 12.1 27.9 30.9 17.2 25.2
Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 12.1 27.9 30.9 17.2 25.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 339 910 406 472 523
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.81 0.87 0.89 0.68
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 339 1014 452 522 601
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.9 50.2 51.3 61.0 44.7
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 21.3 4.5 16.0 16.4 2.5
Initial a Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.4 13.0 14.1 8.6 11.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.3 54.7 67.3 77.4 47.2
LnGre LOS F D E E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1387 1129
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.4 58.5
Approach LOS E E
imer - Assi ned Phs 2 3 4 5
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 64.7 24.1 44.0 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5
Max a Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 6.5 26.9 19.2 32.9 12.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.7 0.4 3.9 0.0
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.6
HCM 6th LOS E
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
' "" t WBR NBL NBT
'i'i tt
103 324 730
103 324 730
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
112 352 793

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
165 252 1413

0.29 0.07 0.40
560 3456 3554
354 352 793
1770 1728 1777

25.4 10.5 24.9

0.32 1.00
521 252 1413

0.68 1.39 0.56
598 252 1413

1.00 1.00 1.00

44.7 66.6 33.6

2.6 199.8 1.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

11.6 11.7 11.1

47.3 266.5 35.2
D F D
1480

87.0 F
6 7 8

60.6 18.6 49.5

7.5 4.5 7.2

53.1 14.1 48.6

35.2 14.1 27.4

6.0 0.0 4.5
I"
NBA
'{'
308
308
0 1.00

1.00 1870
335

0.92 2
847

0.40 1585
335
1585

17.9 17.9

1.00 847

0.40 847

1.00 1.00

19.8 1.4

0.0 7.0

21.1 C
Existing PM
04/24/2018
'. ! ..,,

SBL SST SB
'i'i tf.
100 590 262
100 590 262
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
109 641 285

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
155 884 393

0.04 0.37 0.37
3456 2392 1063
109 476 450
1728 1777 1679

4.5 33.2 33.2

1.00 0.63
155 656 620

0.70 0.73 0.73
209 656 620

1.00 1.00 1.00

67.7 39.0 39.0

6.6 6.9 7.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

2.1 15.7 14.9

74.3 45.9 46.3
E D D
1035

49.0 D
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

677
San Marcos Senior Apartment Project September 17, 2019
Page | 61
Appendix C: Existing +Project Scenario Synchro Worksheets 678
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 229 236 265 407 99 181 407 88 55 868 96 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 229 236 265 407 99 181 407 88 55 868 96 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 60 249 257 288 442 108 197 442 96 60 943 104 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 78 356 317 317 949 230 226 1330 875 78 1033 461 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1777 1585 1781 2836 688 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 249 257 288 276 274 197 442 96 60 943 104 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1747 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 13.5 16.1 16.5 12.7 12.9 11.3 9.2 3.0 3.5 26.6 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 13.5 16.1 16.5 12.7 12.9 11.3 9.2 3.0 3.5 26.6 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 356 317 317 594 584 226 1330 875 78 1033 461 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.70 0.81 0.91 0.46 0.47 0.87 0.33 0.11 0.77 0.91 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 161 547 488 319 701 690 226 1330 875 161 1033 461 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 49.2 38.6 39.7 41.9 27.2 27.3 44.5 23.2 11.1 49.2 35.6 28.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.0 2.5 5.8 28.4 0.6 0.6 28.5 0.7 0.3 15.0 13.5 1.1 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 1.9 6.1 6.7 9.6 5.4 5.4 6.7 3.9 1.1 1.9 13.2 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.1 41.2 45.5 70.2 27.8 27.9 73.0 23.9 11.3 64.1 49.1 29.1 LnGrp LOS E D D E C C E C B E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 566 838 735 1107
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.6 42.4 35.4 48.0
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 44.5 23.0 27.4 17.7 35.8 9.0 41.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 11.2 18.5 18.1 13.3 28.6 5.5 14.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 679
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 314 81 27 486 20 85 31 15 38 155 133 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 314 81 27 486 20 85 31 15 38 155 133 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 41 341 88 29 528 22 92 34 16 41 168 145 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 67 602 153 53 719 30 119 530 249 67 769 652
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2805 714 1781 3477 145 1781 1203 566 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 214 215 29 270 280 92 0 50 41 168 145 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1781 1777 1844 1781 0 1768 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 8.5 8.7 1.3 11.2 11.3 4.0 0.0 1.3 1.8 4.6 4.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 8.5 8.7 1.3 11.2 11.3 4.0 0.0 1.3 1.8 4.6 4.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 381 374 53 368 382 119 0 779 67 769 652 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.56 0.57 0.55 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.00 0.06 0.61 0.22 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 124 691 677 133 695 722 236 0 779 148 769 652 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.6 27.8 27.9 37.9 29.4 29.4 36.4 0.0 12.8 37.6 15.1 15.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 1.3 1.4 8.5 2.8 2.8 10.2 0.0 0.2 8.8 0.7 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 3.6 3.7 0.7 4.9 5.1 2.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 2.0 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.4 29.1 29.3 46.4 32.2 32.2 46.5 0.0 12.9 46.4 15.7 15.9 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDABDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 470 579 142 354
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 32.9 34.7 19.4
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 41.7 6.9 23.2 9.8 39.4 7.5 22.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 3.3 3.3 10.7 6.0 6.7 3.8 13.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.4 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 680
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases. 681
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing+Project AM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 260 4 122 65 1 299
Future Volume (vph) 260 4 122 65 1 299
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 283 4 133 71 1 325
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 33 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 283 1 133 38 1 325
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 15.8 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 15.8 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.62
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 392 351 994 844 22 1146
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.00 c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.00 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 21.6 8.3 7.9 34.7 6.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.6
Delay (s) 32.1 21.6 8.6 8.0 35.6 7.0
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 32.0 8.4 7.1
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
682
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 6 74 13 3 5 47 537 32 34 1155 160 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 6 74 13 3 5 47 537 32 34 1155 160 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 147 7 80 14 3 5 51 584 35 37 1255 174 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 193 14 160 42 15 25 71 1979 118 59 1802 249
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.58 0.58 0.03 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 129 1476 1781 630 1051 1781 3407 204 1781 3137 433 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 147 0 87 14 0 8 51 304 315 37 708 721 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1605 1781 0 1681 1781 1777 1834 1781 1777 1792 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 4.7 0.7 0.0 0.4 2.6 7.9 7.9 1.9 25.6 26.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 4.7 0.7 0.0 0.4 2.6 7.9 7.9 1.9 25.6 26.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193 0 174 42 0 39 71 1032 1065 59 1021 1030 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.00 0.20 0.72 0.29 0.30 0.62 0.69 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 358 0 323 705 0 665 104 1032 1065 139 1021 1030 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 0.00 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 39.4 0.0 38.3 43.7 0.0 43.6 43.2 9.6 9.6 43.4 13.7 13.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.0 2.2 4.6 0.0 2.5 12.8 0.7 0.7 10.2 3.9 4.0 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 3.5 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.4 3.0 3.1 1.0 10.4 10.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 0.0 40.5 48.4 0.0 46.1 56.0 10.4 10.3 53.6 17.6 17.7 LnGrp LOS D A D D A D E B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 234 22 670 1466
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.7 47.5 13.8 18.6
Approach LOS D D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 58.3 16.5 8.1 57.7 8.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 * 18 5.3 * 52 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 9.9 9.3 4.6 28.0 2.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.6 0.0 11.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 683
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 478 50 636 798 106 12 58 430 90 372 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 478 50 636 798 106 12 58 430 90 372 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 39 520 54 691 867 115 13 63 0 98 404 82 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 56 669 298 701 1278 570 27 1192 104 1118 225 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.06 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2947 593 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 520 54 691 867 115 13 63 0 98 242 244 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 15.4 3.2 22.1 22.9 5.6 0.8 1.3 0.0 6.1 10.9 11.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 15.4 3.2 22.1 22.9 5.6 0.8 1.3 0.0 6.1 10.9 11.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 56 669 298 701 1278 570 27 1192 104 674 669 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.78 0.18 0.99 0.68 0.20 0.49 0.05 0.94 0.36 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 112 1122 500 701 1625 725 80 1192 104 674 669 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.2 42.8 37.8 44.0 30.1 24.5 54.2 24.9 0.0 52.0 24.7 24.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.3 2.0 0.3 30.2 0.8 0.2 13.3 0.1 0.0 68.4 1.5 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 6.9 1.3 12.3 9.8 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.0 4.7 4.8 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.4 44.8 38.1 74.2 30.9 24.7 67.5 25.0 0.0 120.4 26.2 26.3 LnGrp LOS E D D E C C E C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 613 1673 76 A 584
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.6 48.3 32.3 42.1
Approach LOS DDCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 45.2 27.0 27.7 6.1 50.1 8.0 46.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 3.3 24.1 17.4 2.8 13.0 4.4 24.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 684
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 499 284 445 533 31 203 383 373 94 883 249 Future Volume (veh/h) 177 499 284 445 533 31 203 383 373 94 883 249 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 192 542 309 484 579 34 221 416 405 102 960 271 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 244 813 363 527 1060 62 257 1449 888 148 1030 290 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3411 200 3456 3554 1585 3456 2738 770 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 192 542 309 484 301 312 221 416 405 102 622 609 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1834 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1732 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.7 19.6 26.4 19.5 19.8 19.9 8.9 11.1 21.3 4.1 47.4 47.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 19.6 26.4 19.5 19.8 19.9 8.9 11.1 21.3 4.1 47.4 47.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 813 363 527 552 570 257 1449 888 148 669 652 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.92 0.55 0.55 0.86 0.29 0.46 0.69 0.93 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 345 1033 461 531 612 632 257 1449 888 213 669 652 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 64.5 49.5 52.1 58.9 40.3 40.4 64.6 28.0 18.3 66.6 42.2 42.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 1.1 11.8 21.0 0.8 0.8 24.1 0.5 1.7 5.6 21.3 22.4 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 3.7 8.9 11.7 10.1 8.9 9.2 4.8 4.9 8.2 1.9 24.6 24.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.3 50.6 63.9 79.9 41.2 41.2 88.7 28.5 20.0 72.2 63.5 64.8 LnGrp LOS E D E E D D F C BEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1043 1097 1042 1333
Approach Delay, s/veh 58.6 58.3 38.0 64.8
Approach LOS E E D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 65.0 26.0 39.5 15.0 60.6 14.4 51.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5 53.1 14.1 48.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 23.3 21.5 28.4 10.9 49.8 9.7 21.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.7 0.1 3.9 0.0 2.3 0.2 4.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 55.6
HCM 6th LOS E
685
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project PM 1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 157 289 200 160 250 60 210 660 254 91 657 71 Future Volume (veh/h) 157 289 200 160 250 60 210 660 254 91 657 71 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 171 314 217 174 272 65 228 717 276 99 714 77 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 176 411 277 210 633 149 247 1371 799 126 1129 503 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2031 1370 1781 2856 671 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 171 274 257 174 167 170 228 717 276 99 714 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1624 1781 1777 1750 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 13.8 14.3 9.1 7.7 7.9 12.0 14.8 9.9 5.2 16.3 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 13.8 14.3 9.1 7.7 7.9 12.0 14.8 9.9 5.2 16.3 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 176 360 329 210 394 388 247 1371 799 126 1129 503 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.76 0.78 0.83 0.42 0.44 0.92 0.52 0.35 0.79 0.63 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 176 598 546 348 766 754 247 1371 799 176 1129 503 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 42.7 35.7 35.9 41.0 31.8 31.9 40.4 22.5 14.2 43.5 27.7 23.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 59.1 3.3 4.1 8.0 0.7 0.8 36.8 1.4 1.2 14.5 2.7 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.8 6.2 5.9 4.4 3.3 3.4 7.7 6.3 3.7 2.8 7.2 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 101.8 39.1 40.0 49.0 32.5 32.7 77.3 23.9 15.4 57.9 30.4 23.9 LnGrp LOS F DDDCCECBECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 702 511 1221 890
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.7 38.2 31.9 32.9
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 42.3 15.7 25.9 17.7 35.8 13.9 27.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 16.8 11.1 16.3 14.0 18.3 11.1 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.6 0.3 3.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 686
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project PM 2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 439 58 13 312 30 71 92 18 26 76 78 Future Volume (veh/h) 131 439 58 13 312 30 71 92 18 26 76 78 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 142 477 63 14 339 33 77 100 20 28 83 85 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 128 658 87 30 501 49 100 692 138 52 805 682
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.03 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3157 415 1781 3274 317 1781 1513 303 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 142 268 272 14 183 189 77 0 120 28 83 85 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1796 1781 1777 1813 1781 0 1816 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 10.7 10.8 0.6 7.4 7.5 3.3 0.0 2.9 1.2 2.0 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 10.7 10.8 0.6 7.4 7.5 3.3 0.0 2.9 1.2 2.0 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 370 374 30 272 278 100 0 830 52 805 682 V/C Ratio(X) 1.11 0.72 0.73 0.47 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.00 0.14 0.54 0.10 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 128 717 725 138 722 736 245 0 830 154 805 682 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.4 28.2 28.2 37.2 30.5 30.6 35.5 0.0 12.0 36.5 13.0 13.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 110.8 2.7 2.7 10.9 2.9 2.9 11.8 0.0 0.4 8.3 0.3 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.3 4.7 4.7 0.3 3.3 3.4 1.7 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 146.3 30.8 30.9 48.1 33.4 33.5 47.4 0.0 12.4 44.8 13.2 13.5 LnGrp LOS F CCDCCDABDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 682 386 197 196
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.9 34.0 26.1 17.8
Approach LOS D C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 41.7 5.8 22.1 8.8 39.7 10.0 17.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 4.9 2.6 12.8 5.3 4.5 7.5 9.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 2.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 687
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project PM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases. 688
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing+Project PM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 109 1 216 257 5 146
Future Volume (vph) 109 1 216 257 5 146
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 118 1 235 279 5 159
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 108 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 0 235 171 5 159
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 8.1 40.8 40.8 1.0 46.7
Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 8.1 40.8 40.8 1.0 46.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.61 0.61 0.02 0.70
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 215 193 1144 972 26 1310
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.00 c0.09
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.00 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.00 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 25.6 5.6 5.5 32.3 3.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.6 0.2
Delay (s) 30.3 25.6 6.1 5.9 35.9 3.4
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 30.2 6.0 4.4
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
689
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project PM 4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 189 7 68 20 5 0 113 994 26 37 892 153 Future Volume (veh/h) 189 7 68 20 5 0 113 994 26 37 892 153 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 205 8 74 22 5 0 123 1080 28 40 970 166 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 246 22 200 48 50 0 98 1989 52 61 1643 281
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.56 0.56 0.03 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 157 1452 1781 1870 0 1781 3539 92 1781 3035 519 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 0 82 22 5 0 123 542 566 40 568 568 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1609 1781 1870 0 1781 1777 1854 1781 1777 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.8 0.0 4.5 1.2 0.3 0.0 5.3 18.6 18.6 2.1 20.8 20.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.8 0.0 4.5 1.2 0.3 0.0 5.3 18.6 18.6 2.1 20.8 20.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 246 0 222 48 50 0 98 999 1042 61 962 962 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.37 0.46 0.10 0.00 1.26 0.54 0.54 0.66 0.59 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 337 0 305 664 697 0 98 999 1042 131 962 962 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.6 0.0 37.8 46.3 45.9 0.0 45.7 13.3 13.3 46.1 14.9 14.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.2 0.0 1.0 6.9 0.9 0.0 175.8 2.1 2.0 11.5 2.7 2.7 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 5.5 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 7.1 7.5 7.8 1.1 8.6 8.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.7 0.0 38.8 53.2 46.8 0.0 221.4 15.4 15.4 57.6 17.6 17.6 LnGrp LOS D A D D D A F BBEBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 287 27 1231 1176
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.7 52.0 36.0 19.0
Approach LOS D D D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 59.7 19.9 9.8 57.7 9.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 * 18 5.3 * 52 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 20.6 12.8 7.3 22.8 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.9 0.5 0.0 9.2 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 690
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project PM 5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 121 809 79 375 645 105 59 245 708 48 171 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 121 809 79 375 645 105 59 245 708 48 171 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 132 879 86 408 701 114 64 266 0 52 186 54 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 99 989 441 483 1289 575 76 1209 67 916 259
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2736 772 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 879 86 408 701 114 64 266 0 52 119 121 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1731 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 27.7 4.8 13.4 18.3 5.8 4.2 6.2 0.0 3.4 5.6 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 27.7 4.8 13.4 18.3 5.8 4.2 6.2 0.0 3.4 5.6 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 99 989 441 483 1289 575 76 1209 67 595 580 V/C Ratio(X) 1.33 0.89 0.19 0.84 0.54 0.20 0.84 0.22 0.78 0.20 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 99 1065 475 666 1559 695 76 1209 99 595 580 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.1 40.4 32.1 49.0 29.5 25.5 55.5 27.5 0.0 55.7 27.7 27.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 202.5 8.9 0.2 7.2 0.4 0.2 53.0 0.4 0.0 19.8 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.5 13.2 1.9 6.3 7.8 2.2 3.0 2.7 0.0 1.9 2.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 257.7 49.3 32.3 56.1 29.9 25.7 108.5 27.9 0.0 75.5 28.4 28.6 LnGrp LOS F D C E C C F C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1097 1223 330 A 292
Approach Delay, s/veh 73.0 38.3 43.5 36.9
Approach LOS E D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 47.7 20.8 39.3 9.5 47.1 11.0 49.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 6.5 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 8.2 15.4 29.7 6.2 7.8 8.5 20.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.9 2.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 691
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project PM 6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 272 678 327 388 549 106 324 730 310 105 590 262 Future Volume (veh/h) 272 678 327 388 549 106 324 730 310 105 590 262 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 296 737 355 422 597 115 352 793 337 114 641 285 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 339 910 406 473 876 168 252 1407 845 160 883 393 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 2973 571 3456 3554 1585 3456 2392 1063 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 296 737 355 422 356 356 352 793 337 114 476 450 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1768 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1679 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.1 28.0 30.9 17.3 25.4 25.6 10.5 24.9 18.1 4.7 33.2 33.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 28.0 30.9 17.3 25.4 25.6 10.5 24.9 18.1 4.7 33.2 33.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 339 910 406 473 524 521 252 1407 845 160 656 620 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.81 0.87 0.89 0.68 0.68 1.39 0.56 0.40 0.71 0.73 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 339 1013 452 522 601 597 252 1407 845 209 656 620 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 64.0 50.2 51.3 61.0 44.7 44.8 66.6 33.8 19.9 67.6 39.1 39.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.4 4.6 16.0 16.5 2.6 2.7 200.1 1.6 1.4 7.5 6.9 7.3 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 6.4 13.0 14.1 8.7 11.6 11.7 11.7 11.2 7.1 2.2 15.7 14.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.3 54.8 67.3 77.5 47.3 47.4 266.7 35.4 21.3 75.2 45.9 46.3 LnGrp LOS F D E E D D F D C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1388 1134 1482 1040
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.5 58.6 87.1 49.3
Approach LOS E E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 64.4 24.2 44.0 15.0 60.6 18.6 49.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5 53.1 14.1 48.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 26.9 19.3 32.9 12.5 35.2 14.1 27.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.7 0.4 3.9 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.7
HCM 6th LOS E
692
San Marcos Senior Apartment Project September 17, 2019
Page | 62
Appendix D: Near Term Scenario Synchro Worksheets
693
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Twin Oaks Vallel Rd. & Borden Rd.
,> -+ "). 'f ,._ -\.. "" t ovement EBI!. elH EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 11 +t+ 11 tf+ 11 tt
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 239 248 275 426 103 190 427
Future Volume (veh/h) 58 239 248 275 426 103 190 427
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 260 270 299 463 112 207 464 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 81 369 329 315 964 232 224 1306
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1777 1585 1781 2842 683 1781 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 260 270 299 288 287 207 464 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1747 1781 1777 a Serve(g_s), s 3.7 14.3 17.1 17.4 13.4 13.6 12.1 10.0
Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 3.7 14.3 17.1 17.4 13.4 13.6 12.1 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 369 329 315 603 593 224 1306
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.70 0.82 0.95 0.48 0.48 0.92 0.36
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 159 541 483 315 694 682 224 1306
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.6 38.6 39.7 42.7 27.4 27.4 45.4 24.2 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 14.4 2.5 7.0 37.0 0.6 0.6 40.0 0.8 Initial a Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 6.4 7.2 10.8 5.7 5.7 7.8 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.9 41.1 46.8 79.7 28.0 28.0 85.4 24.9 LnGre LOS E D D E C C F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 593 874 769 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.1 45.7 39.5 Approach LOS D D D imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 44.2 23.1 28.4 17.7 35.8 9.3 42.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max a Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 5.7 12.0 19.4 19.1 14.1 30.9 5.7 15.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.9 HCM 6th LOS D
ates
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"
NBR
.,,
90 90
0 1.00 1.00
1870
98 0.92
2 863

0.37 1585
98 1585

3.2 3.2

1.00 863

0.11 863

1.00 1.00

11.6 0.3 0.0

1.1 11.9
B
Near Term AM
04/24/2018
'.. !

SBL SBT SB
11 tt .,,
58 911 101 58 911 101
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
63 990 110

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
81 1022 456

0.05 0.29 0.29
1781 3554 1585
63 990 110
1781 1777 1585

3.7 28.9 5.6 3.7 28.9 5.6

1.00 1.00
81 1022 456

0.77 0.97 0.24
159 1022 456

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

49.6 37.0 28.6

14.4 21.6 1.3

0.0 0.0 0.0

2.0 15.4 2.3

63.9 58.5 29.9
E E C
1163

56.1 E
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

694
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd.
.,,> .... • 'f ' "'\ t ovement l:BL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations "i tf+ "i tf+ "i f+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 330 84 27 510 21 87 33
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 330 84 27 510 21 87 33
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hnn 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 359 91 29 554 23 95 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 68 628 157 53 746 31 123 533
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2815 705 1781 3477 144 1781 1227
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 225 225 29 283 294 95 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1743 1781 1777 1844 1781 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 9.0 9.2 1.3 11.9 12.0 4.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 9.0 9.2 1.3 11.9 12.0 4.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.08 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 68 397 389 53 381 396 123 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.74 0.74 0.77 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 122 682 669 131 686 712 233 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.0 27.7 27.8 38.4 29.5 29.5 36.8 0.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 1.3 1.4 8.6 2.9 2.8 9.9 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 3.9 3.9 0.7 5.2 5.4 2.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.2 29.0 29.2 47.0 32.3 32.3 46.7 0.0 LnGre LOS D C C D C C D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 493 606 147
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 33.0 34.9 Approach LOS C C C imer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 41.7 6.9 24.1 10.0 39.3 7.6 23.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 3.9 3.4 3.3 11.2 6.2 7.1 3.9 14.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 3.2 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.5 HCM 6th LOS C
ates
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"
NBA
15 15
0 1.00 1.00
1870
16 0.92
2 237

0.43 545
52 1772

1.4 1.4

0.31 770
0,07
770

1.00 1.00

13.2 0.2

0.0 0.6

13.4 B
Near Term AM
04/24/2018
'. ! -4"

SBL SBT SB
"i t '{'
40 163 140 40 163 140
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
43 177 152

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
68 756 641

0.04 0.40 0.40
1781 1870 1585
43 177 152
1781 1870 1585

1.9 5.0 5.1 1.9 5.0 5.1

1.00 1.00
68 756 641

0.63 0.23 0.24
146 756 641

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

38.0 15.7 15.8

9.1 0.7 0.9

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 2.2 1.9

47.2 16.5 16.6
D B B
372

20.1 C
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

695
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd.

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
Near Term AM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 0 Report

Page 1 ends

696
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Woodward St. & Vine~ard Rd.
'f '- t I" '. !
ovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations " 'f' + 'f' " + Traffic Volume (vph) 272 4 128 67 1 314 Future Volume (vph) 272 4 128 67 1 314
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (pro!) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Said. Flow (eerm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 296 4 139 73 1 341
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 34 0 0
Lane Groue Flow (veh) 296 1 139 39 1 341
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Pro! NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.3 16.3 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Effective Green, g (s) 16.3 16.3 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.61
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 402 359 987 838 22 1138
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.00 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 21.4 8.6 8.1 35.0 6.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.7
Delay (s) 32.6 21.4 8.9 8.2 35.8 7.3
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 32.4 8.6 7.4 Approach LOS C A A
ntersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.7 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15
C Critical Lane Group
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
B

16.5 A
Near Term AM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

697
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Twin Oaks Vallel Rd. & Richmar Ave.
.,,> -+ • 'f 4- ' "'\ t ovement !:BL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NB[ NBli Lane Configurations .., f+ "i f+ "i tf+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 142 6 78 14 3 5 49 561
Future Volume (veh/h) 142 6 78 14 3 5 49 561
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hnn 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 154 7 85 15 3 5 53 610 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 200 14 166 43 15 25 72 1964
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.58 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 122 1482 1781 630 1051 1781 3404
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 0 92 15 0 8 53 318 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1604 1781 0 1681 1781 1777 a Serve(g_s), s 7.7 0.0 4.9 0.8 0.0 0.4 2.7 8.4
Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 7.7 0.0 4.9 0.8 0.0 0.4 2.7 8.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.63 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 0 180 43 0 41 72 1025
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.51 0.35 0.00 0.20 0.74 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 356 0 320 700 0 661 103 1025
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.5 0.0 38.3 44.0 0.0 43.8 43.5 10.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.0 2.2 4.7 0.0 2.3 14.8 0.8 Initial a Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %He BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.5 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.7 0.0 40.5 48.7 0.0 46.1 58.3 10.8 LnGre LOS D A D D A D E B
Approach Vol, veh/h 246 23 700 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.7 47.8 14.4 Approach LOS D D B imer - Assi ned Phs 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 58.3 16.9 8.2 57.7 8.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 *5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 *18 5.3 * 52 36.0 Max a Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 4.0 10.5 9.7 4.7 30.8 2.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.5 0.6 0.0 11.7 0.1
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1 HCM 6th LOS C
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"'
NBA
34 34
0 1.00 1.00
1870
37 0.92
2 119

0.58 206
329
1833

8.5 8.5

0.11 1058

0.31 1058

1.00 1.00 10.0

0.8 0.0

3.4 10.8
B
Near Term AM
04/24/2018
'. !
S.BL SBT SB
"i tf+
36 1211 168 36 1211 168
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
39 1316 183

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
61 1791 247

0.03 0.57 0.57
1781 3136 433
39 742 757
1781 1777 1792

2.0 28.2 28.8 2.0 28.2 28.8

1.00 0.24
61 1015 1023

0.64 0.73 0.74
138 1015 1023

1.00 1.00 1.00

43.7 14.5 14.6

10.5 4.6 4.8

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 11.5 11.9

54.2 19.1 19.4
D B B
1538

20.1 C
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

698
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term AM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 04/24/2018 ---
"), 'f +- ' ""\ t ,... '. ../ ovement EBL ffiBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Sl3l SBT SB Lane Configurations 'I tt 'f' 'l'I tt 'f' 'I tt 'f' 'I tft Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 502 53 668 838 110 13 57 452 93 384 79 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 502 53 668 838 110 13 57 452 93 384 79 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 546 58 726 911 120 14 62 0 101 417 86 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 57 695 310 695 1296 578 28 1181 103 1101 225 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.06 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2938 60.1 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 546 58 726 911 120 14 62 0 101 251 252 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1762 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 16.3 3.4 22.5 24.5 5.8 0.9 1.3 0.0 6.3 11.5 11.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 16.3 3.4 22.5 24.5 5.8 0.9 1.3 0.0 6.3 11.5 11.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 57 695 310 695 1296 578 28 1181 103 666 660 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.79 0.19 1.04 0.70 0.21 0.50 0.05 0.98 0.38 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 111 1112 496 695 1610 718 80 1181 103 666 660 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(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.6 42.8 37.6 44.7 30.4 24.4 54.6 25.4 0.0 52.6 25.5 25.5 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 15.2 2.0 0.3 46.4 1.0 0.2 13.0 0.1 0.0 80.6 1.6 1.7 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 1.4 7.3 1.4 14.0 10.5 2.2 0.5 0.6 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.9 44.8 37.9 91.1 31.4 24.6 67.6 25.5 0.0 133.2 27.1 27.2 LnGre LOS E D D F C C E C F C C Approach Vol, veh/h 645 1757 76 A 604 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.7 55.6 33.2 44.9 Approach LOS D E C D 1mer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 45.2 27.0 28.7 6.3 49.9 8.1 47.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 *8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 8.3 3.3 24.5 18.3 2.9 13.7 4.6 26.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.2 0.0 7.5 nters~ction Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.9
HCM 6th LOS D
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

699
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Twin Oaks Valle~ Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd.
,> -+ " f --- ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT
Lane Configurations 1111 tt .,, 1111 tf+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 186 524 298 466 559
Future Volume (veh/h) 186 524 298 466 559
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hAn 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 202 570 324 507 608 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 253 842 376 525 1084
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3434
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 202 570 324 507 314 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 20.8 28.0 20.8 21.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 20.8 28.0 20.8 21.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 842 376 525 561
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.68 0.86 0.97 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 341 1020 455 525 605
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.2 49.5 52.3 60.2 40.6
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 9.3 1.4 13.6 30.6 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 9.5 12.6 11.4 9.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.5 50.9 65.8 90.8 41.6
LnGre LOS E D E F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1096 1147 Approach Delay, s/veh 59.7 63.4 Approach LOS E E imer - Assi ned Phs 2 3 4 5
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.7 64.9 26.2 41.0 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 6.3 25.4 22.8 30.0 11.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.9 0.0 3.8 0.0
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 61.5
HCM 6th LOS E
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
' t WBR NBL NBT
1111 tt
29 213 402
29 213 402
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
32 232 437

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
57 254 1427

0.32 0.07 0.40
181 3456 3554
326 232 437
1838 1728 1777

21.1 9.5 12.0 21.1 9.5 12.0

0.10 1.00
580 254 1427

0.56 0.91 0.31
625 254 1427

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

40.6 65.7 29.2

1.0 34.3 0.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

9.8 5.4 5.3

41.6 100.0 29.7
D F C
1094

41.4 D
6 7 8

60.6 14.9 52.3

7.5 4.5 7.2

53.1 14.1 48.6

54.6 10.2 23.1

0.0 0.2 4.2
I"
NBA
.,,
391 391
0 1.00

1.00 1870
425

0.92 2
877

0.40 1585
425
1585

23.4 23.4

1.00 877

0.48 877

1.00 1.00 19.5

1.9 0.0

9.1 21.4
C
Near Term AM
04/24/2018
'. ! ,.I

SBL SBT SB
1111 tf+
97 927 261
97 927 261
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
105 1008 284

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
151 1019 286

0.04 0.37 0.37
3456 2741 768
105 652 640
1728 1777 1732

4.3 52.0 52.6 4.3 52.0 52.6

1.00 0.44
151 661 644

0.70 0.99 0.99
210 661 644

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

67.4 44.5 44.7

5.7 31.9 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.0 28.5 28.5

73.0 76.4 78.9
E E E
1397

77.3 E
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

700
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term PM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 301 210 165 261 62 221 693 263 95 690 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 301 210 165 261 62 221 693 263 95 690 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 179 327 228 179 284 67 240 753 286 103 750 82 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 174 423 288 215 666 154 244 1340 789 130 1113 496 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.38 0.38 0.07 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2021 1379 1781 2863 664 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179 287 268 179 174 177 240 753 286 103 750 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1622 1781 1777 1751 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 14.7 15.1 9.5 8.1 8.3 13.0 16.1 10.7 5.5 17.7 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 14.7 15.1 9.5 8.1 8.3 13.0 16.1 10.7 5.5 17.7 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 174 372 340 215 413 407 244 1340 789 130 1113 496 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.77 0.79 0.83 0.42 0.43 0.98 0.56 0.36 0.79 0.67 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 174 590 538 344 756 745 244 1340 789 174 1113 496 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 43.5 35.9 36.1 41.4 31.5 31.6 41.5 23.7 14.8 44.0 28.8 24.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 76.6 3.4 4.1 9.2 0.7 0.7 53.0 1.7 1.3 16.2 3.3 0.7 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 7.8 6.6 6.3 4.7 3.5 3.5 9.2 6.9 4.0 3.0 7.9 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 120.1 39.3 40.3 50.7 32.2 32.3 94.5 25.4 16.1 60.1 32.1 24.7 LnGrp LOS F DDDCCFCBECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 734 530 1279 935
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.4 38.5 36.3 34.5
Approach LOS E D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 42.0 16.1 26.8 17.7 35.8 13.9 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 18.1 11.5 17.1 15.0 19.7 11.4 10.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.7 0.3 3.1 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 701
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd.
.,,> -+ .. 'f +- -\.. t
ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT
Lane Configurations " ti. " ti. " t. Traffic Volume {veh/h) 138 461 59 12 328 32 74 97 Future Volume {veh/h) 138 461 59 12 328 32 74 97
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 501 64 13 357 35 80 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 127 684 87 28 524 51 104 692
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3171 404 1781 3271 319 1781 1527
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 150 280 285 13 193 199 80 0 Grp Sat Flow{s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1798 1781 1777 1813 1781 0 a Serve(g_s), s 5.5 11.3 11.4 0.6 7.9 8.0 3.4 0.0
Cycle a Clear{g_c), s 5.5 11.3 11.4 0.6 7.9 8.0 3.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.18 1.00
Lane Grp Cap{c), veh/h 127 383 388 28 284 290 104 0
V/C Ratio{X) 1.18 0.73 0.74 0.46 0.68 0.69 0.77 0.00
Avail Cap{c_a), veh/h 127 710 719 136 715 730 243 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter{!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay {d), s/veh 35.8 28.1 28.2 37.6 30.5 30.5 35.8 0.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 136.0 2.7 2.7 11.4 2.8 2.9 11.4 0.0 Initial a Delay{d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.1 4.9 5.0 0.3 3.5 3.6 1.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay{d),s/veh 171.8 30.8 30.9 49.0 33.3 33.4 47.2 0.0 LnGre LOS F C C D C C D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 715 405 205 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.4 33.9 26.2 Approach LOS E C C imer - Assi ned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration {G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 41.7 5.7 22.8 9.0 39.5 10.0 18.5 Change Period {Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting {Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time {g_c+l1 ), s 3.2 5.1 2.6 13.4 5.4 4.6 7.5 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 2.2 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.2
HCM 6th LOS D
0tes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"'
NBA
18 18
0 1.00

1.00 1870
20 0.92
2 132

0.45 291
125
1818

3.1 3.1

0.16 824

0.15 824

1.00 1.00

12.4 0.4 0.0

1.3 12.8
B
Near Term PM
04/24/2018
\. ! ../
SBL SBT SB " t .,, 27 80 82
27 80 82
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
29 87 89

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
53 795 673

0.03 0.42 0.42
1781 1870 1585
29 87 89
1781 1870 1585

1.2 2.2 2.6 1.2 2.2 2.6

1.00 1.00
53 795 673

0.54 0.11 0.13
153 795 673

1.00 1.00 1.00

36.8 13.4 13.5

8.3 0.3 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.6 0.9 1.0

45.1 13.6 13.9
D B B
205

18.2 B
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

702
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd.

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
Near Term PM
04/24/2018
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

703
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Woodward St. & Vine~ard Rd.
f ' t /"' \. ovement WBL WBR NBT NBA SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 1i 'f' t 'f' 1i t
Traffic Volume (vph) 112 1 227 269 5 153
Future Volume (vph) 112 1 227 269 5 153
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (eerm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 122 1 247 292 5 166
ATOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 113 0 0
Lane Groue Flow (veh) 122 0 247 179 5 166
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 8.3 40.9 40.9 1.0 46.8
Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 8.3 40.9 40.9 1.0 46.8
Actuated glC Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.70
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 220 196 1142 970 26 1307
vis Ratio Prot c0.13 0.00 c0.09 vis Ratio Perm c0.07 0.00 0.11 vlc Ratio 0.55 0.00 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.13
Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 25.6 5.8 5.6 32.5 3.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.6 0.2
Delay (s) 30.5 25.6 6.2 6.0 36.0 3.5
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 30.4 6.1 4.4 Approach LOS C A A
ntersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.7 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15
C Critical Lane Group
Lanikai Senior Apartments 0412312018 Baseline
A

16.5 A
Near Term PM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

704
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Twin Oaks Valle~ Rd. & Richmar Ave.
.,,,. -+ ...... f +- ' ""' t ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations llj f+ llj f+ llj tf+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 198 7 71 21 5 0 119 1041
Future Volume (veh/h) 198 7 71 21 5 0 119 1041
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hAn 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 215 8 77 23 5 0 129 1132
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 255 22 209 49 51 0 97 1973
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 151 1457 1781 1870 0 1781 3540
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 0 85 23 5 0 129 568 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1608 1781 1870 0 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 0.0 4.7 1.2 0.3 0.0 5.3 20.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 0.0 4.7 1.2 0.3 0.0 5.3 20.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 255 0 230 49 51 0 97 990
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.37 0.47 0.10 0.00 1.33 0.57
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 335 0 302 659 692 0 97 990
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.6 0.0 37.7 46.6 46.1 0.0 46.0 14.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 13.9 0.0 1.0 7.0 0.8 0.0 202.9 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.9 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 7.8 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 0.0 38.7 53.6 47.0 0.0 248.9 16.4 LnGre LOS D A D D D A F B Approach Vol, veh/h 300 28 1290 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.0 52.4 39.6 Approach LOS D D D
imer - Assi ned Phs 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 59.6 20.5 9.8 57.7 9.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 *5.4 * 6.6 4.5 *5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 *18 5.3 * 52 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 4.3 22.3 13.4 7.3 24.6 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.3 0.5 0.0 9.6 0.1
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.4 HCM 6th LOS C
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"'
NBA
27 27
0 1.00 1.00
1870
29 0.92
2 51

0.56 91
593
1854

20.3 20.3

0.05 1033

0.57 1033

1.00 1.00 14.0

2.3 0.0 8.6

16.3 B
Near Term PM
04/24/2018
\.. i ..,,
SBh. SBT SB
llj tt+
39 932 161 39 932 161
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
42 1013 175

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
62 1629 281

0.03 0.54 0.54
1781 3030 523
42 593 595
1781 1777 1776

2.3 22.6 22.6 2.3 22.6 22.6

1.00 0.29
62 955 955

0.68 0.62 0.62
130 955 955

1.00 1.00 1.00

46.4 15.6 15.6

12.1 3.0 3.1

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 9.4 9.4

58.5 18.7 18.7
E B B
1230

20.0 C
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

705
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term PM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 04/24/2018 .,> _.., .. 'f +- ' ""' t I" '. i .,' ovement l:BL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SB Lane Configurations 1i tt r' "i"i tt r' 1i tt r' 1i tt+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1'27 849 83 394 677 108 62 249 743 49 174 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 127 849 83 394 677 108 62 249 743 49 174 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 923 90 428 736 117 67 271 0 53 189 58 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 105 1009 450 501 1315 586 75 1182 68 887 265 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2698 804 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 923 90 428 736 117 67 271 0 53 123 124 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1m 1585 1781 1777 1726 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 29.9 5.1 14.4 19.6 6.0 4.5 6.5 0.0 3.5 5.9 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 29.9 5.1 14.4 19.6 6.0 4.5 6.5 0.0 3.5 5.9 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 1009 450 501 1315 586 75 1182 68 584 568 V/C Ratio(X) 1.32 0.92 0.20 0.85 0.56 0.20 0.89 0.23 0.78 0.21 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 105 1046 467 654 1516 676 75 1182 97 584 568 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(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.9 41.2 32.3 49.6 29.8 25.5 56.7 28.7 0.0 56.7 28.8 28.8 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 194.3 11.9 0.2 8.5 0.4 0.2 69.1 0.5 0.0 21.5 0.8 0.9 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 o/oile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.8 14.6 2.0 6.8 8.4 2.3 3.4 2.9 0.0 2.0 2.7 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 250.2 53.1 32.5 58.1 30.1 25.6 125.8 29.1 0.0 78.2 29.6 29.7 LnGre LOS F D C E C C F C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1151 1281 338 A 300 Approach Delay, s/veh 75.1 39.1 48.3 38.2 Approach LOS E D D D imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 47.5 21.7 40.5 9.5 47.1 11.5 50.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 *8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max Q Clear Time {g_c+l1 ), s 5.5 8.5 16.4 31.9 6.5 8.2 9.0 21.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.9 1.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 6.2 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.5 HCM 6th LOS D
ates
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

706
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Twin Oaks Valle~ Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd.
,> ..... • 'f +- ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT
Lane Configurations '111 tt 'f' 'l'I tt+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 286 711 343 406 575
Future Volume (veh/h) 286 711 343 406 575
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 311 773 373 441 625 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 333 933 416 487 918
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 2988
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 311 773 373 441 371 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1m a Serve(g_s), s 13.1 30.0 33.2 18.4 26.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 30.0 33.2 18.4 26.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 333 933 416 487 546
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.90 0.68
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 333 996 444 512 590
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.7 50.9 52.1 61.9 44.4 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 32.7 5.7 19.8 19.0 2.9
Initial a Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 14.1 15.5 9.4 12.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 98.3 56.5 71.8 80.9 47.3 LnGre LOS F E E F D Approach Vol, veh/h 1457 1183 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.4 59.8 Approach LOS E E , imer - Assi9ned Phs 2 3 4 5
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 64.4 25.1 45.6 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 6.8 29.4 20.4 35.2 12.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 8.0 0.3 3.2 0.0
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 72.6 HCM 6th LOS E
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
' ""' t WBR NBL NBT 11'1 tt
108 340 767
108 340 767
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
117 370 834

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
171 248 1381

0.31 0.07 0.39
558 3456 3554 371 370 834
1770 1728 1777

26.9 10.5 27.4

0.32 1.00
544 248 1381

0.68 1.49 0.60
588 248 1381

1.00 1.00 1.00

44.4 67.9 35.8

2.9 241.7 2.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

12.3 13.0 12.3

47.4 309.6 37.7
D F D
1555

98.9 F
6 7 8

60.6 18.6 52.1

7.5 4.5 7.2

53.1 14.1 48.6

38.5 15.1 28.9

5.7 0.0 4.7
I"
NBR
'f'
323 323
0 1.00 1.00
1870
351

0.92 2
839

0.39 1585
351
1585

19.6 19.6

1.00 839

0.42 839

1.00 1.00

20.8 1.5

0.0 7.7

22.3 C
Near Term PM
04/24/2018
\. l ..,,

SBL SBT SB
11'1 ttt
105 620 275 105 620 275
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
114 674 299

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
159 869 385

0.05 0.36 0.36
3456 2394 1062
114 500 473
1728 1777 1679

4.8 36.5 36.5

1.00 0.63
159 645 609

0.72 0.78 0.78
205 645 609

1.00 1.00 1.00

68.9 41.3 41.3

8.1 8.9 9.4

0.0 0.0 0.0

2.3 17.6 16.7

76.9 50.2 50.7
E D D
1087

53.2 D
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

707
San Marcos Senior Apartment Project September 17, 2019
Page | 63
Appendix E: Near Term + Project Scenario Synchro Worksheets 708
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project AM 1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 240 248 278 427 104 190 427 92 58 911 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 240 248 278 427 104 190 427 92 58 911 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 63 261 270 302 464 113 207 464 100 63 990 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 81 369 330 315 963 233 224 1306 863 81 1022 456 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1777 1585 1781 2837 686 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 261 270 302 289 288 207 464 100 63 990 110 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1747 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 14.3 17.1 17.6 13.5 13.7 12.1 10.0 3.2 3.7 28.9 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 14.3 17.1 17.6 13.5 13.7 12.1 10.0 3.2 3.7 28.9 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 369 330 315 603 593 224 1306 863 81 1022 456 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.71 0.82 0.96 0.48 0.49 0.92 0.36 0.12 0.77 0.97 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 159 541 483 315 694 682 224 1306 863 159 1022 456 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 49.6 38.6 39.7 42.8 27.4 27.4 45.4 24.2 11.6 49.6 37.0 28.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.4 2.5 7.0 39.3 0.6 0.6 40.0 0.8 0.3 14.4 21.6 1.3 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 2.0 6.4 7.2 11.1 5.8 5.7 7.8 4.3 1.2 2.0 15.4 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.9 41.1 46.8 82.1 28.0 28.1 85.4 24.9 11.9 63.9 58.6 29.9 LnGrp LOS E D D F C C F C B E E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 594 879 771 1163
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.1 46.6 39.5 56.1
Approach LOS D D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 44.2 23.1 28.4 17.7 35.8 9.3 42.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 12.0 19.6 19.1 14.1 30.9 5.7 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 709
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project AM 2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 330 85 28 510 21 89 33 16 40 163 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 330 85 28 510 21 89 33 16 40 163 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 43 359 92 30 554 23 97 36 17 43 177 152 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 68 625 158 54 746 31 125 522 247 68 754 639
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2808 711 1781 3477 144 1781 1201 567 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 225 226 30 283 294 97 0 53 43 177 152 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1781 1777 1844 1781 0 1768 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 9.1 9.3 1.3 11.9 12.0 4.3 0.0 1.4 1.9 5.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 9.1 9.3 1.3 11.9 12.0 4.3 0.0 1.4 1.9 5.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 68 395 388 54 381 396 125 0 769 68 754 639 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.74 0.74 0.78 0.00 0.07 0.63 0.23 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 122 682 668 131 686 712 233 0 769 146 754 639 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.0 27.8 27.9 38.4 29.5 29.5 36.7 0.0 13.2 38.0 15.8 15.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 1.3 1.4 8.6 2.9 2.8 9.8 0.0 0.2 9.1 0.7 0.9 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 1.0 3.9 3.9 0.7 5.2 5.4 2.2 0.0 0.6 1.0 2.2 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.2 29.1 29.3 47.0 32.3 32.3 46.5 0.0 13.4 47.2 16.5 16.7 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDABDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 494 607 150 372
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 33.0 34.8 20.1
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 41.7 6.9 24.1 10.1 39.1 7.6 23.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 3.4 3.3 11.3 6.3 7.1 3.9 14.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 3.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 710
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project AM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases. 711
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term+Project AM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 273 4 128 68 1 314
Future Volume (vph) 273 4 128 68 1 314
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 297 4 139 74 1 341
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 35 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 297 1 139 39 1 341
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 16.4 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 16.4 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.61
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 404 361 985 837 22 1136
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.00 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.00 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 25.7 21.4 8.6 8.2 35.0 6.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.7
Delay (s) 32.5 21.4 8.9 8.3 35.9 7.4
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 32.3 8.7 7.4
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
712
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project AM 4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 142 6 78 14 3 5 49 564 34 36 1213 168 Future Volume (veh/h) 142 6 78 14 3 5 49 564 34 36 1213 168 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 154 7 85 15 3 5 53 613 37 39 1318 183 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 200 14 166 43 15 25 72 1965 118 61 1791 247
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.58 0.58 0.03 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 122 1482 1781 630 1051 1781 3405 205 1781 3137 433 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 0 92 15 0 8 53 320 330 39 743 758 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1604 1781 0 1681 1781 1777 1833 1781 1777 1793 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.7 0.0 4.9 0.8 0.0 0.4 2.7 8.5 8.5 2.0 28.2 28.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 0.0 4.9 0.8 0.0 0.4 2.7 8.5 8.5 2.0 28.2 28.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 0 180 43 0 41 72 1025 1058 61 1015 1023 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.51 0.35 0.00 0.20 0.74 0.31 0.31 0.64 0.73 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 356 0 320 700 0 661 103 1025 1058 138 1015 1023 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 0.00 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 39.5 0.0 38.3 44.0 0.0 43.8 43.5 10.0 10.0 43.7 14.5 14.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.0 2.2 4.7 0.0 2.3 14.8 0.8 0.8 10.5 4.7 4.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.5 3.3 3.4 1.0 11.6 11.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.7 0.0 40.5 48.7 0.0 46.1 58.3 10.8 10.8 54.2 19.1 19.4 LnGrp LOS D A D D A D E B B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 246 23 703 1540
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.7 47.8 14.4 20.2
Approach LOS D D B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 58.3 16.9 8.2 57.7 8.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 * 18 5.3 * 52 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 10.5 9.7 4.7 30.8 2.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.6 0.0 11.7 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 713
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project AM 5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 502 53 668 838 111 13 61 452 94 390 79 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 502 53 668 838 111 13 61 452 94 390 79 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 41 546 58 726 911 121 14 66 0 102 424 86 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 57 695 310 695 1296 578 28 1181 103 1105 222 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.06 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2947 593 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 546 58 726 911 121 14 66 0 102 254 256 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 16.3 3.4 22.5 24.5 5.9 0.9 1.4 0.0 6.4 11.7 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 16.3 3.4 22.5 24.5 5.9 0.9 1.4 0.0 6.4 11.7 11.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 57 695 310 695 1296 578 28 1181 103 666 661 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.79 0.19 1.04 0.70 0.21 0.50 0.06 0.99 0.38 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 111 1112 496 695 1610 718 80 1181 103 666 661 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.6 42.8 37.6 44.7 30.4 24.5 54.6 25.4 0.0 52.7 25.5 25.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.2 2.0 0.3 46.4 1.0 0.2 13.0 0.1 0.0 83.7 1.7 1.7 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 1.4 7.3 1.4 14.0 10.5 2.2 0.5 0.6 0.0 5.3 5.2 5.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.9 44.8 37.9 91.1 31.4 24.6 67.6 25.5 0.0 136.4 27.2 27.3 LnGrp LOS E D D F C C E C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 645 1758 80 A 612
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.7 55.6 32.9 45.4
Approach LOS D E C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 45.2 27.0 28.7 6.3 49.9 8.1 47.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 3.4 24.5 18.3 2.9 13.9 4.6 26.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.2 0.0 7.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 714
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project AM 6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 186 524 298 467 560 32 213 402 392 99 927 261 Future Volume (veh/h) 186 524 298 467 560 32 213 402 392 99 927 261 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
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 202 570 324 508 609 35 232 437 426 108 1008 284 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, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 253 842 376 525 1078 62 254 1424 876 154 1019 286 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.04 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3416 196 3456 3554 1585 3456 2741 768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 202 570 324 508 316 328 232 437 426 108 652 640 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1835 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1732 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 20.8 28.0 20.9 21.2 21.2 9.5 12.0 23.5 4.4 52.0 52.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 20.8 28.0 20.9 21.2 21.2 9.5 12.0 23.5 4.4 52.0 52.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 842 376 525 561 579 254 1424 876 154 661 644 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.68 0.86 0.97 0.56 0.57 0.91 0.31 0.49 0.70 0.99 0.99 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 341 1020 455 525 605 624 254 1424 876 210 661 644 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 65.2 49.5 52.3 60.2 40.7 40.7 65.7 29.3 19.6 67.3 44.5 44.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.3 1.4 13.6 31.1 1.0 1.0 34.3 0.6 1.9 6.2 31.9 34.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 9.5 12.6 11.4 9.5 9.8 5.4 5.3 9.1 2.1 28.5 28.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.5 50.9 65.8 91.3 41.7 41.7 100.0 29.8 21.5 73.5 76.4 78.9 LnGrp LOS E D E F D D F C C E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1096 1152 1095 1400
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.7 63.6 41.4 77.3
Approach LOS E E D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 64.7 26.2 41.0 15.0 60.6 14.9 52.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5 53.1 14.1 48.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 25.5 22.9 30.0 11.5 54.6 10.2 23.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.9 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 61.6
HCM 6th LOS E
715
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project AM 15: E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 7 ends

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support turning movements with shared & exclusive lanes. 716
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project PM 1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 303 210 168 262 63 221 693 267 96 690 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 303 210 168 262 63 221 693 267 96 690 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 179 329 228 183 285 68 240 753 290 104 750 82 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 173 425 288 219 672 158 243 1332 789 131 1109 495 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.07 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2026 1374 1781 2856 670 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179 288 269 183 176 177 240 753 290 104 750 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1623 1781 1777 1750 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 14.8 15.2 9.7 8.1 8.4 13.0 16.3 10.9 5.6 17.8 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 14.8 15.2 9.7 8.1 8.4 13.0 16.3 10.9 5.6 17.8 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 173 372 340 219 418 412 243 1332 789 131 1109 495 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.42 0.43 0.99 0.57 0.37 0.79 0.68 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 173 587 537 342 753 741 243 1332 789 173 1109 495 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 43.7 36.1 36.2 41.5 31.4 31.5 41.7 24.0 14.9 44.1 29.0 24.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 77.8 3.4 4.2 10.0 0.7 0.7 54.2 1.7 1.3 16.6 3.3 0.7 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 7.8 6.7 6.3 4.8 3.5 3.6 9.3 7.0 4.1 3.0 7.9 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 121.5 39.5 40.5 51.5 32.1 32.2 95.9 25.8 16.3 60.7 32.3 24.9 LnGrp LOS F D D D C C F C B E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 736 536 1283 936
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.8 38.7 36.7 34.8
Approach LOS E D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 41.9 16.4 26.9 17.7 35.8 13.9 29.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 18.3 11.7 17.2 15.0 19.8 11.4 10.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.7 0.3 3.1 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 717
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project PM 2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 138 461 61 14 328 32 75 97 19 27 80 82 Future Volume (veh/h) 138 461 61 14 328 32 75 97 19 27 80 82 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 501 66 15 357 35 82 105 21 29 87 89 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 127 683 90 32 533 52 106 683 137 53 789 669
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.03 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3158 414 1781 3271 319 1781 1513 303 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 150 281 286 15 193 199 82 0 126 29 87 89 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1796 1781 1777 1813 1781 0 1816 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 11.4 11.5 0.6 7.9 8.0 3.5 0.0 3.2 1.2 2.2 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 11.4 11.5 0.6 7.9 8.0 3.5 0.0 3.2 1.2 2.2 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 384 388 32 289 295 106 0 820 53 789 669 V/C Ratio(X) 1.18 0.73 0.74 0.47 0.67 0.67 0.77 0.00 0.15 0.54 0.11 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 127 708 715 136 713 727 242 0 820 152 789 669 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.9 28.2 28.2 37.6 30.4 30.4 35.8 0.0 12.5 37.0 13.6 13.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 137.6 2.7 2.7 10.5 2.6 2.7 11.1 0.0 0.4 8.3 0.3 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.2 4.9 5.0 0.4 3.5 3.6 1.8 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 173.5 30.9 31.0 48.1 33.0 33.1 47.0 0.0 12.9 45.3 13.8 14.1 LnGrp LOS F C C D C C D A B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 717 407 208 205
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.8 33.6 26.3 18.4
Approach LOS E C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 41.7 5.9 22.9 9.1 39.4 10.0 18.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 5.2 2.6 13.5 5.5 4.7 7.5 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 718
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project PM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases. 719
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term+Project PM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 114 1 227 270 5 153
Future Volume (vph) 114 1 227 270 5 153
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 124 1 247 293 5 166
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 113 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 124 0 247 180 5 166
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 8.3 40.9 40.9 1.0 46.8
Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 8.3 40.9 40.9 1.0 46.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.70
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 220 196 1142 970 26 1307
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.00 c0.09
v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.00 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.00 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.13
Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 25.6 5.8 5.6 32.5 3.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 3.6 0.2
Delay (s) 30.8 25.6 6.2 6.1 36.0 3.5
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 30.7 6.1 4.4
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
720
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project PM 4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 198 7 71 21 5 0 119 1044 27 39 936 161 Future Volume (veh/h) 198 7 71 21 5 0 119 1044 27 39 936 161 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 215 8 77 23 5 0 129 1135 29 42 1017 175 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 255 22 209 49 51 0 97 1973 50 62 1630 280
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.56 0.56 0.03 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 151 1457 1781 1870 0 1781 3540 90 1781 3032 521 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 0 85 23 5 0 129 570 594 42 595 597 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1608 1781 1870 0 1781 1777 1854 1781 1777 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 0.0 4.7 1.2 0.3 0.0 5.3 20.3 20.3 2.3 22.7 22.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 0.0 4.7 1.2 0.3 0.0 5.3 20.3 20.3 2.3 22.7 22.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 255 0 230 49 51 0 97 990 1033 62 955 955 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.37 0.47 0.10 0.00 1.33 0.58 0.58 0.68 0.62 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 335 0 302 659 692 0 97 990 1033 130 955 955 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.6 0.0 37.7 46.6 46.1 0.0 46.0 14.0 14.0 46.4 15.6 15.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.9 0.0 1.0 7.0 0.8 0.0 202.9 2.4 2.3 12.1 3.1 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 5.9 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 7.8 8.3 8.6 1.2 9.4 9.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 0.0 38.7 53.6 47.0 0.0 248.9 16.5 16.4 58.5 18.7 18.7 LnGrp LOS D A D D D A F B B E B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 300 28 1293 1234
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.0 52.4 39.6 20.1
Approach LOS D D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 59.6 20.5 9.8 57.7 9.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 * 18 5.3 * 52 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 22.3 13.4 7.3 24.8 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.3 0.5 0.0 9.7 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 721
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project PM 5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 127 849 83 394 677 110 62 257 743 50 179 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 127 849 83 394 677 110 62 257 743 50 179 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 923 90 428 736 120 67 279 0 54 195 58 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 105 1009 450 501 1315 586 75 1180 69 894 259 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2719 787 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 923 90 428 736 120 67 279 0 54 126 127 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1729 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 29.9 5.1 14.4 19.6 6.1 4.5 6.8 0.0 3.6 6.1 6.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 29.9 5.1 14.4 19.6 6.1 4.5 6.8 0.0 3.6 6.1 6.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 1009 450 501 1315 586 75 1180 69 584 569 V/C Ratio(X) 1.32 0.92 0.20 0.85 0.56 0.20 0.89 0.24 0.78 0.21 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 105 1046 467 654 1516 676 75 1180 82 584 569 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.9 41.2 32.3 49.6 29.8 25.5 56.7 28.8 0.0 56.6 28.8 28.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 194.3 11.9 0.2 8.5 0.4 0.2 69.1 0.5 0.0 31.6 0.8 0.9 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 8.8 14.6 2.0 6.8 8.4 0.0 3.4 3.0 0.0 2.2 2.7 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 250.2 53.1 32.5 58.1 30.1 25.7 125.8 29.3 0.0 88.2 29.6 29.8 LnGrp LOS F D C E C C F C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1151 1284 346 A 307
Approach Delay, s/veh 75.1 39.1 47.9 40.0
Approach LOS E D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 47.5 21.7 40.5 9.5 47.1 11.5 50.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 38.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 8.8 16.4 31.9 6.5 8.3 9.0 21.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.9 1.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 6.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 722
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term+Project PM 6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 286 712 343 407 576 111 340 767 325 110 620 275 Future Volume (veh/h) 286 712 343 407 576 111 340 767 325 110 620 275 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 311 774 373 442 626 121 370 834 353 120 674 299 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 333 932 416 488 913 176 248 1374 837 165 868 385 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.05 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 2971 573 3456 3554 1585 3456 2394 1062 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 311 774 373 442 374 373 370 834 353 120 500 473 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1767 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1679 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.1 30.1 33.2 18.4 27.0 27.1 10.5 27.5 19.8 5.0 36.6 36.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 30.1 33.2 18.4 27.0 27.1 10.5 27.5 19.8 5.0 36.6 36.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 333 932 416 488 546 543 248 1374 837 165 644 609 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.91 0.68 0.69 1.49 0.61 0.42 0.73 0.78 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 333 995 444 512 590 587 248 1374 837 205 644 609 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.7 50.9 52.1 61.9 44.5 44.5 67.9 36.0 21.0 68.7 41.4 41.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 32.8 5.7 19.8 19.1 3.0 3.1 241.9 2.0 1.6 9.3 8.9 9.4 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 7.3 14.1 15.5 9.4 12.4 12.4 13.0 12.4 7.8 2.4 17.6 16.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 98.4 56.6 71.9 81.0 47.5 47.6 309.9 38.0 22.6 78.0 50.3 50.8 LnGrp LOS F E E F D D F D C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1458 1189 1557 1093
Approach Delay, s/veh 69.4 60.0 99.1 53.5
Approach LOS E E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 64.1 25.2 45.6 15.0 60.6 18.6 52.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5 53.1 14.1 48.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 29.5 20.4 35.2 12.5 38.6 15.1 29.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.0 0.2 3.2 0.0 5.7 0.0 4.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 72.8
HCM 6th LOS E
723
San Marcos Senior Apartment Project September 17, 2019
Page | 64
Appendix F: Horizon Year 2035 Scenario Synchro Worksheets 724
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Twin Oaks Valle~ Rd. & Borden Rd .
.,,> -+ ..... 'f +- ' "'\ t ovement EBL !:BT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations .., ti. .., ti. .., tt
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 64 267 276 307 475 115 212 476
Future Volume (veh/h) 64 267 276 307 475 115 212 476
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70 290 300 334 516 125 230 517 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 90 400 357 308 988 238 219 1256
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1777 1585 1781 2839 685 1781 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 70 290 300 334 322 319 230 517 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1747 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 16.2 19.4 18.6 15.5 15.6 13.2 11.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 16.2 19.4 18.6 15.5 15.6 13.2 11.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 400 357 308 618 608 219 1256
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.72 0.84 1.08 0.52 0.52 1.05 0.41
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 156 529 472 308 678 667 219 1256
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 38.5 39.7 44.4 27.9 27.9 47.1 26.3 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 13.2 3.3 9.9 75.1 0.7 0.7 74.8 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 7.4 8.5 14.6 6.6 6.6 10.4 5.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.6 41.9 49.7 119.5 28.6 28.6 121.9 27.3 LnGre LOS E D D F C C F C Approach Vol, veh/h 660 975 857 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.7 59.7 50.9 Approach LOS D E D imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 43.6 23.1 30.8 17.7 35.8 9.9 44.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 6.2 13.8 20.6 21.4 15.2 32.2 6.2 17.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.6 HCM 6th LOS E
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
NBA
,,
101 101
0 1.00 1.00
1870
110

0.92 2
835

0.35 1585
110
1585

3.8 3.8

1.00 835

0.13 835

1.00 1.00 12.9

0.3 0.0

1.4 13.3
B
Year2035 AM
04/24/2018
\. i wt;'

SBL SBT SB
.., tt ,,
64 1016 112 64 1016 112
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
70 1104 122

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
90 999 446

0.05 0.28 0.28
1781 3554 1585
70 1104 122
1781 1777 1585

4.2 30.2 6.4

1.00 1.00
90 999 446

0.78 1.10 0.27
156 999 446

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

50.4 38.6 30.1

13.2 61.7 1.5

0.0 0.0 0.0

2.2 21.5 2.6

63.6 100.3 31.6
E F C
1296

91.9 F
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

725
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd.
,> -+ • 'f +- ' "' t ovement EBL EBlf EB!!t WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations " tf+ " tf+ " ft Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 367 94 30 569 23 97 36 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 367 94 30 569 23 97 36
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hnn 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48 399 102 33 618 25 105 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 72 676 171 57 809 33 134 520
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2809 711 1781 3481 141 1781 1235
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48 251 250 33 315 328 105 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1m 1742 1781 1777 1845 1781 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 10.3 10.5 1.5 13.7 13.7 4.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 10.3 10.5 1.5 13.7 13.7 4.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.08 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 428 419 57 413 429 134 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.59 0.60 0.58 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 118 661 648 127 665 690 226 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.2 27.8 27.9 39.5 29.7 29.7 37.6 0.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 10.2 1.3 1.4 8.9 3.0 2.9 9.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 4.4 4.4 0.8 6.0 6.2 2.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.4 29.1 29.2 48.4 32.6 32.5 47.0 0.0 LnGre LOS D C C D C C D A Approach Vol, veh/h 549 676 161 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.9 33.4 35.7 Approach LOS C C D
,mer- Ass' ned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 41.7 7.2 26.1 10.8 38.8 7.8 25.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 4.2 3.6 3.5 12.5 6.8 8.1 4.2 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.9 0.1 1.7 0.0 3.5 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.2 HCM 6th LOS C
ates
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"
NBR
16 16
0 1.00 1.00
1870
17 0.92
2 227

0.42 538
56 1773

1.6 1.6

0.30 747

0.07 747

1.00 1.00

14.3 0.2

0.0 0.6

14.5 B
Year 2035 AM
04/24/2018
'. i
SBL SST SB " + '{' 44 181 156
44 181 156
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
48 197 170

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
72 722 612

0.04 0.39 0.39
1781 1870 1585
48 197 170
1781 1870 1585

2.2 6.0 6.1 2.2 6.0 6.1

1.00 1.00
72 722 612

0.67 0.27 0.28
142 722 612

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

39.2 17.4 17.5

10.2 0.9 1.1

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.1 2.7 2.3

49.4 18.4 18.6
D B B
415

22.1 C
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

726
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd.

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
Year2035 AM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

727
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Woodward St. & Vine~ard Rd.
., ' t /"' '. ! ovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 'i .,, t .,, 'i t
Traffic Volume (vph) 303 5 143 75 1 350
Future Volume (vph) 303 5 143 75 1 350
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (eerm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 329 5 155 82 1 380
ATOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 39 0 0
Lane Groue Flow (veh) 329 1 155 43 1 380
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prat NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.4 17.4 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Effective Green, g (s) 17.4 17.4 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 423 378 972 826 21 1120
v/s Ratio Prat 0.08 0.00 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.00 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.00 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.34
Uniform Delay, d1 25.9 21.1 9.1 8.5 35.5 7.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.8
Delay (s) 34.6 21.1 9.4 8.7 36.5 8.1
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 34.4 9.2 8.2
Approach LOS C A A
ntersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.8 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15
C Critical Lane Group
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
8 16.5
A
Year2035 AM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

728
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Twin Oaks Vallel Rd. & Richmar Ave.
.,,.
---- • 'f +- ' t ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 11 11 11 t~
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 158 7 87 15 4 6 55 625
Future Volume (veh/h) 158 7 87 15 4 6 55 625
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 172 8 95 16 4 7 60 679 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 217 15 181 48 16 29 77 1935
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 125 1479 1781 610 1068 1781 3410
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 172 0 103 16 0 11 60 354 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1604 1781 0 1678 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 0.0 5.6 0.8 0.0 0.6 3.1 10.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 0.0 5.6 0.8 0.0 0.6 3.1 10.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.64 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 217 0 196 48 0 45 77 1008
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.53 0.33 0.00 0.24 0.78 0.35
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 349 0 314 687 0 647 101 1008
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.8 0.0 38.4 44.6 0.0 44.5 44.2 10.9 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 0.0 2.2 4.0 0.0 2.7 24.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 0.0 2.3 0,4 0.0 0.3 1.9 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.2 0.0 40.6 48.6 0.0 47.2 68.3 11.9 LnGre LOS D A D D A D E B
Approach Vol, veh/h 275 27 779 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.1 48.0 16.2 Approach LOS D D B imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 58.4 18.0 8.5 57.7 9.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 • 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 *18 5.3 * 52 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 4.2 12.0 10.8 5.1 38.8 2.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.6 0.0 9.5 0.1
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.2 HCM 6th LOS C
ates
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"
NBA
37 37
0 1.00 1.00
1870
40 0.92
2 114

0.57 201
365
1834

10.0 10.0

0.11 1041

0.35 1041

1.00 1.00

10.9 0.9

0.0 4.1

11.8 B
Year2035 AM
04/24/2018
'-. ! .,,/
seL SBT SB
11 t~
40 1349 18-Z 40 1349 187
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
43 1466 203

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
64 1759 241

0.04 0.56 0.56
1781 3140 430
43 822 847
1781 1m 1793

2.2 35.3 36.8 2.2 35.3 36.8

1.00 0.24
64 996 1005

0.67 0.83 0.84
135 996 1005

1.00 1.00 1.00

44.4 16.8 17.1

11.5 7.8 8.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 15.2 16.1

55.9 24.6 25.7
E C C
1712

25.9 C
Synchro 1 0 Report

Page 1 ends

729
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year2035 AM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 04/24/2018 _,.
.... • 'f +- ' "" t I" '. i ~ ovemer:it EBL laBT EBR WBL WBili WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SB Lane Configurations .., ++ .,, ..,.., ++ .,, .., ++ ,, .., tt+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 559 59 744 934 123 14 63 503 104 428 88 Future Volume (veh/h) 42 559 59 744 934 123 14 63 503 104 428 88 Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 608 64 809 1015 134 15 68 0 113 465 96 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 60 757 337 680 1336 596 30 1156 101 1074 220 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.38 0.38 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.06 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2936 602 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 608 64 809 1015 134 15 68 0 113 280 281 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1m 1585 1781 1m 1762 a Serve(g_s), s 2.9 18.6 3.8 22.5 28.5 6.6 1.0 1.5 0.0 6.5 13.6 13.8 Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 2.9 18.6 3.8 22.5 28.5 6.6 1.0 1.5 0.0 6.5 13.6 13.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 757 337 680 1336 596 30 1156 101 650 644 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.80 0.19 1.19 0.76 0.22 0.51 0.06 1.12 0.43 0.44 Avajl Cap(c_a), veh/h 109 1088 485 680 1576 703 78 1156 101 650 644 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(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.8 42.7 36.9 45.9 31.2 24.3 55.8 26.5 0.0 53.9 27.3 27.4 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 18.4 2.9 0.3 99.6 1.8 0.2 12.9 0.1 0.0 124.1 2.1 2.1 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 o/oile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 8.4 1.5 19.0 12.4 2.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.4 6.1 6.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.2 45.6 37.2 145.5 33.0 24.5 68.6 26.6 0.0 178.0 29.4 29.5 LnGre LOS E D D F C C E C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 718 1958 83 A 674
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.7 78.9 34.2 54.4
Approach LOS D E C D
,mer - Assi ned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 45.2 27.0 31 .1 6.4 49.8 8.3 49.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 *8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max a Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 8.5 3.5 24.5 20.6 3.0 15.8 4.9 30.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 8.0 nterseetion Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.3
HCM 6th LOS E
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBA] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

730
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Twin Oaks Valle:t Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. ~ -+ • 'f ~ ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT Lane Configurations "i"i tt .,, "i"i ti.

Traffic Volume (veh/h) 207 584 332 519 622
Future Volume (veh/h) 207 584 332 519 622
lnltial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 635 361 564 676
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 273 906 404 513 1112
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3432
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 225 635 361 564 350
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1m
a Serve(g_s), s 9.4 23.7 32.1 21.7 24.2
Cycle a Clear{g_c), s 9.4 23.7 32.1 21.7 24.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 273 906 404 513 576
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.70 0.89 1.10 0.61
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 333 996 444 513 590
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.3 49.4 52.6 62.3 41.6
Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 12.9 2.0 18.9 70.0 1.7
Initial a Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 10.8 14.9 14.5 11.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.3 51.4 71.5 132.3 43.3
LnGre LOS E D E F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1221 1276
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.5 82.6
Approach LOS E F
imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5
Phs Duration (G+ Y +Re), s 11.4 64.2 26.2 44.5 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5
Max a Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 6.9 30.9 23.7 34.1 12.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.4 0.0 3.1 0.0
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 81.9
HCM 6th LOS F
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
' "" t WBR NBL NBT
"i"i tt
33 238 448
33 238 448
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
36 259 487

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
59 248 1378

0.32 0.07 0.39
183 3456 3554
362 259 487
1837 1728 1777

24.3 10.5 14.2

0.10 1.00
596 248 1378

0.61 1.04 0.35
610 248 1378

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
41 .6 67.9 31 .8

1.7 69.2 0.7

0.0 0.0 0.0

11.4 7.0 6.3

43.3 137.1 32.5
D F C
1219

51.8 D
6 7 8

60.6 16.1 54.6

7.5 4.5 7.2

53.1 14.1 48.6

55.1 11.4 26.3

0.0 0.2 4.6 ~ NBR .,, 435 435 0 1.00 1.00 1870 473 0.92 2 850 0.39 1585 473 1585 28.9 28.9 1.00 850 0.56 850 1.00 1.00 22.4 2.6 0.0 11.4 25.1 C Year2035 AM
04/24/2018
\. i ~ SBL SBT SB
"i"i tit
108 1033 291
108 1033 291
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
117 1123 316

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
162 997 277

0.05 0.36 0.36
3456 2746 764
117 722 717
1728 1m 1733

4.9 53.1 53.1

1.00 0.44
162 645 629

0.72 1.12 1.14
206 645 629

1.00 1.00 1.00

68.8 46.6 46.6

8.7 73.2 80.8

0.0 0.0 0.0

2.4 36.4 36.8

77.4 119.8 127.4
E F F
1556
120.1
F
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

731
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Twin Oaks Vallel Rd. & Borden Rd.
,I- _. • 'f +- "- "" t ovement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT, Lane Configurations .,, +tt .,, +tt .,, ++
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 184 336 234 184 291 69 246 772
Future Volume (veh/h) 184 336 234 184 291 69 246 772
Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 200 365 254 200 316 75 267 839
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 166 456 312 235 755 177 234 1251
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2017 1382 1781 2858 669 1781 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 200 321 298 200 195 196 267 839 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1m 1622 1781 1777 1750 1781 1777 a Serve(g_s), s 9.4 17.2 17.5 11.0 9.1 9.3 13.2 20.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 17.2 17.5 11.0 9.1 9.3 13.2 20.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.38 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 166 401 366 235 469 462 234 1251 V/C Ratio(X) 1.20 0.80 0.81 0.85 0.41 0.42 1.14 0.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 166 565 516 329 724 713 234 1251
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.6 36.8 36.9 42.7 30.6 30.7 43.7 27.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 134.2 5.4 6.7 14.0 0.6 0.6 102.5 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.3 7.9 7.5 5.7 3.9 4.0 12.4 8.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 179.7 42.2 43.6 56.7 31.2 31.3 146.2 30.5 LnGre LOS F D D E C C F C Approach Vol, veh/h 819 591 1424 Approach Delay, s/veh 76.3 39.9 49.5 Approach LOS E D D imer - Assi ned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.5 41.0 17.8 29.3 17.7 35.8 13.9 33.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 * 34 18.6 * 32 13.2 * 30 9.4 * 41 Max a Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 8.3 22.1 13.0 19.5 15.2 23.6 11.4 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.3 3.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 2.5 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.2
HCM 6th LOS D
ates
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"
NBA
.,,
293 293
0 1.00 1.00
1870
318

0.92 2
767

0.35 1585
318
1585

13.0 13.0

1.00 767

0.41 767

1.00 1.00

16.8 1.7

0.0 4.9

18.4 B
Year2035 PM
04/24/2018
'.. ! ,c,'

SBL SBT SB
.,, ++ .,,
105 769 83
105 769 83
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
114 836 90

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
142 1067 476

0.08 0.30 0.30
1781 3554 1585
114 836 90
1781 1777 1585

6.3 21.6 4.2 6.3 21.6 4.2

1.00 1.00
142 1067 476

0.80 0.78 0.19
166 1067 476

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

45.5 32.2 26.1

21.2 5.8 0.9

0.0 0.0 0.0

3.6 10.0 1.7

66.7 38.0 27.0
E D C
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

732
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd.
.,> .....
...... 'f +- ' "" t ovement ESL EST EBA WB[ WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations " tft " tft " ft Traffic Volume (veh/h) 153 514 66 13 365 35 82 108 Future Volume (veh/h) 153 514 66 13 365 35 82 108
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj{A_pb T) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 166 559 72 14 397 38 89 117 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 123 742 95 30 596 57 115 673
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3167 407 1781 3279 312 1781 1531
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 166 313 318 14 214 221 89 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1m 1797 1781 1777 1814 1781 0 Q Serve{g_s), s 5.5 13.0 13.1 0.6 8.9 9.0 3.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 13.0 13.1 0.6 8.9 9.0 3.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.17 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 123 416 421 30 323 330 115 0
V/C Ratio(X) 1.35 0.75 0.76 0.47 0.66 0.67 0.77 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 123 689 697 132 694 708 236 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.0 28.3 28.3 38.7 30.2 30.3 36.6 0.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 199.7 2.8 2.8 11.1 2.3 2.4 10.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay{d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %He BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.2 5.6 5.7 0.4 3.9 4.0 2.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 236.7 31.0 31.1 49.7 32.6 32.6 47.0 0.0 LnGre LOS F C C D C C D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 797 449 228
Approach Delay, s/veh 73.9 33.1 26.9 Approach LOS E C C imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 41.7 5.8 24.8 9.6 39.2 10.0 20.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 3.5 5.7 2.6 15.1 5.9 5.1 7.5 11.0 Green Ext Time {p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.5 0.1 0.8 0.0 2.5 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.6 HCM 6th LOS D
otes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
,,.

N_BR
20 20
0 1.00 1.00
1870
22 0.92
2 126

0.44 288
139
1819

3.7 3.7

0.16 799

0.17 799

1.00 1.00 13.5

0.5 0.0

1.5 14.0
B
Year2035 PM
'.

SBL
30 "
30 0

1.00 1.00
1870
33 0.92
2 58

0.03 1781
33 1781

1.5 1.5

1.00 58

0.57 148

1.00 1.00

37.9 8.5 0.0 0.8

46.3 D
04/24/2018
SBJ SB
t '{'
89 91 89 91
0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870
97 99

0.92 0.92
2 2
762 646

0.41 0.41
1870 1585
97 99
1870 1585

2.6 3.1 2.6 3.1

1.00 762 646

0.13 0.15
762 646

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

14.7 14.9

0.3 0.5

0.0 0.0

1.1 1.2

15.0 15.4
B B
229

19.7 B
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

733
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd.

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
Year 2035 PM
04/24/2018
Synchro 1 0 Report

Page 1 ends

734
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Woodward St. & Vinelard Rd.
'( ' t I" \. i ovement WBL WBR NBT NBA SBL SBT
Lane Configurations "i '{' t '{' "i t
Traffic Volume (vph) 125 1 253 300 6 171
Future Volume (vph) 125 1 253 300 6 171
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (eerm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 136 1 275 326 7 186
ATOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 127 0 0
Lane Groue Flow (veh) 136 0 275 199 7 186
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.7 8.7 40.9 40.9 1.0 46.8
Effective Green, g (s) 8.7 8.7 40.9 40.9 1.0 46.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.70
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 205 1135 964 26 1299
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.00 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.00 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.00 0.24 0.21 0.27 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 27.5 25.4 6.0 5.9 32.7 3.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 5.5 0.2
Delay (s) 31.6 25.4 6.5 6.3 38.2 3.6
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 31.6 6.4 4.9 Approach LOS C A A
ntersection Summa
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.1 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15
C Critical Lane Group
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
A

16.5 A
Year2035 PM
04/24/2018
Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

735
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Twin Oaks Vallel Rd. & Richmar Ave.
.,> -+ " 'f ,._ ' "" t ovement ESL EST EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations " ft " ft " tft Traffic Volume (veh/h) 221 8 80 23 6 0 132 1159 Future Volume (veh/h) 221 8 80 23 6 0 132 ·1159
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 240 9 87 25 7 0 143 1260 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 278 23 227 53 55 0 95 1927
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.1-6 0.16 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 151 1457 1781 1870 0 1781 3538
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 0 96 25 7 0 143 633 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h~n 1781 0 1608 1781 1870 0 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s}, s 13.0 0.0 5.3 1.4 0.4 0.0 5.3 24.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 0.0 5.3 1.4 0.4 0.0 5.3 24.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 0 251 53 55 0 95 968
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.38 0.47 0.13 0.00 1.50 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 329 0 297 647 680 0 95 968
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.8 0.0 37.5 47.3 46.8 0.0 46.9 15.9 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 18.3 0.0 1.0 6.5 1.0 0.0 272.1 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.1 0.0 2.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 9.5 10.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.1 0.0 38.5 53.8 47.8 0.0 319.0 19.4 LnGre LOS E A D D D A F B Approach Vol, veh/h 336 32 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.2 52.5 Approach LOS D D
imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 59.4 22.0 9.8 57.7 9.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.1 * 51 *18 5.3 * 52 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 4.6 27.0 15.0 7.3 29.9 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.1 0.4 0.0 10.2 0.1
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.5
HCM 6th LOS D
ates
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
I"
NBA
30 30
0 1.00 1.00
1870
33 0.92
2 50

0.54 93
660
1854

25.0 25.0

0.05 1010

0.65 1010

1.00 1.00 15.9

3.3 0.0

10.8 19.2
B
Year 2035 PM
04/24/2018
'. !
SSL SST SB ·
" ti. 43 1039 179
43 1039 179
0 0 0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
47 1129 195

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
65 1600 275

0.04 0.53 0.53
1781 3032 522
47 660 664
1781 1777 1776

2.6 27.6 27.9

1.00 0.29
65 938 938

0.72 0.70 0.71
128 938 938

1.00 1.00 1.00

47.2 17.6 17.6

13.8 4.4 4.5

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.4 11.8 11.9

61.1 22.0 22.1
E C C
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

736
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035 PM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 04/24/2018 /
----
.,. 'f ~ ' "" t ~ \. ! ./ vement EB~ EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBA SBL SBT SB Lane Configurations 11 tt "f' 1111 tt "f' 11 tt "f' 11 t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 142 947 92 439 755 121 69 277 828 55 194 59 Future Volume (veh/h) 142 947 92 439 755 121 69 277 828 55 194 59 Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/hnn 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 154 1029 100 477 821 132 75 301 0 60 211 64 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 102 1019 454 544 1374 613 73 1130 77 866 256 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.16 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.32 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2704 799 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 1029 100 477 821 132 75 301 0 60 137 138 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/Mn 1781 1m 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1m 1585 1781 1m 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 35.0 5.9 16.5 22.5 6.8 5.0 7.7 0.0 4.1 6.9 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 35.0 5.9 16.5 22.5 6.8 5.0 7.7 0.0 4.1 6.9 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 102 1019 454 544 1374 613 73 1130 77 569 553 VIC Ratio(X) 1.51 1.01 0.22 0.88 0.60 0.22 1.03 0.27 0.78 0.24 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 102 1019 454 637 1476 658 73 1130 95 569 553 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.6 43.6 33.2 50.3 29.9 25.1 58.6 31.0 0.0 57.8 30.6 30.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 272.5 30.7 0.2 11.9 0.6 0.2 113.4 0.6 0.0 27.4 1.0 1.1 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 10.9 19.6 2.3 8.0 9.7 2.6 4.6 3.4 0.0 2.4 3.1 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 330.1 74.3 33.4 62.2 30.5 25.2 172.0 31.6 0.0 85.2 31.6 31.8 LnGre LOS F F C E C C F C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1283 1430 376 A 335
Approach Delay, s/veh 101.8 40.6 59.6 41.2
Approach LOS F D E D
imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 46.8 23.7 41.8 9.5 47.1 11.5 54.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 *8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.2 22.5 * 35 5.0 * 39 7.0 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 6.1 9.7 18.5 37.0 7.0 9.2 9.0 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 6.9 ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 65.7
HCM 6th LOS E
ates
• HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBA] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

737
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Twin Oaks Valle~ Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd.
_,. -+ • f +-
• ovement EBL l:BT EBA WE3L WBT
Lane Configurations "" tt '{' "" t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 318 792 383 453 641 Future Volume (veh/h) 318 792 383 453 641 lnltial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 346 861 416 492 697 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 325 970 433 500 965
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 2981
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 346 861 416 492 415 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.1 34.9 38.8 21.3 30.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.1 34.9 38.8 21.3 30.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 325 970 433 500 575
V/C Ratio(X) 1.06 0.89 0.96 0.98 0.72
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 325 972 433 500 576
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.9 52.3 53.7 63.9 44.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 68.1 10.0 33.2 35.9 4.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.3 16.9 19.4 11.9 14.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 136.0 62.3 87.0 99.9 49.2 LnGre LOS F E F F D Approach Vol, veh/h 1623 1321
Approach Delay, s/veh 84.3 68.1 Approach LOS F E
imer - Assi ned Phs 1 2 3 4 5
Phs Duration (G+ Y +Re), s 11.9 63.7 26.2 48.1 15.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.7 54.9 21.7 41.0 10.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 7.4 35.1 23.3 40.8 12.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
ntersection Summa
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 88.4
HCM 6th LOS F
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline
' "" t WBR NBL NBT
"" tt 121 379 854 121 379 854
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
132 412 928

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
183 242 1331

0.32 0.07 0.37
564 3456 3554
414 412 928
1769 1728 1777

31.0 10.5 33.1 31.0 10.5 33.1 0.32 1.00
573 242 1331

0.72 1.70 0.70
573 242 1331

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

44.8 69.7 39.7

4.5 333.2 3.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

14.4 15.9 15.1

49.2 403.0 42.7
D F D
1731
124.5
F
6 7 8

60.6 18.6 55.7

7.5 4.5 7.2

53.1 14.1 48.6

46.3 16.1 33.0

3.8 0.0 4.8
I"
NBA
'{'
360
360
0 1.00

1.00 1870
391

0.92 2
823

0.37 1585
391
1585

23.6 23.6

1.00 823

0.48 823

1.00 1.00

23.0 2.0

0.0 9.3

25.0 C
Year2035 PM
04/24/2018
'. ! .,.,,

SBL SBT SB
"" t~ 117 690 307i 117 690 307
0 0 0

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870 1870 1870
127 750 334

0.92 0.92 0.92
2 2 2
171 847 377

0.05 0.35 0.35
3456 2392 1064
127 557 527
1728 1m 1679

5.4 44.2 44.3 5.4 44.2 44.3

1.00 0.63
171 629 595

0.74 0.89 0.89
201 629 595

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

70.3 45.6 45.6

11.6 16.7 17.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7 22.4 21.3

81.9 62.2 63.2
F E E
1211

64.7 E
Synchro 1 O Report

Page 1 ends

738
San Marcos Senior Apartment Project September 17, 2019
Page | 65
Appendix G: Horizon Year 2035 + Project Scenario Synchro Worksheets
739
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P AM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 64 268 276 310 476 116 212 476 103 64 1016 112 Future Volume (veh/h) 64 268 276 310 476 116 212 476 103 64 1016 112 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70 291 300 337 517 126 230 517 112 70 1104 122 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 89 390 348 360 1053 256 238 1317 908 90 1022 456 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1777 1585 1781 2836 688 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 70 291 300 337 323 320 230 517 112 70 1104 122 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1747 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 20.6 24.6 25.1 18.8 19.0 17.3 14.4 4.4 5.2 38.8 8.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 20.6 24.6 25.1 18.8 19.0 17.3 14.4 4.4 5.2 38.8 8.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 89 390 348 360 660 649 238 1317 908 90 1022 456 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.75 0.86 0.94 0.49 0.49 0.97 0.39 0.12 0.78 1.08 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 510 455 376 721 708 238 1317 908 283 1022 456 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 63.3 49.1 50.7 52.9 32.6 32.6 58.1 31.3 13.2 63.3 48.0 37.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.8 4.3 12.6 29.9 0.6 0.6 49.1 0.9 0.3 13.3 52.3 1.4 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 2.7 9.6 11.0 14.2 8.3 8.2 11.0 6.4 1.6 2.7 24.5 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.2 53.4 63.3 82.8 33.1 33.2 107.2 32.1 13.5 76.6 100.3 38.5 LnGrp LOS E D E F C C F C B E F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 661 980 859 1296
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.4 50.2 49.8 93.2
Approach LOS E D D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 55.6 31.8 36.2 22.5 44.4 11.3 56.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.4 * 35 28.5 * 39 18.0 * 39 12.3 * 55 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 16.4 27.1 26.6 19.3 40.8 7.2 21.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.7 0.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.6
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 740
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P AM
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 367 95 31 569 23 99 36 17 44 181 156 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 367 95 31 569 23 99 36 17 44 181 156 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48 399 103 34 618 25 108 39 18 48 197 170 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 72 674 172 58 811 33 137 507 234 72 715 606
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2802 716 1781 3481 141 1781 1211 559 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48 251 251 34 315 328 108 0 57 48 197 170 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1741 1781 1777 1845 1781 0 1770 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 10.3 10.5 1.5 13.6 13.6 4.9 0.0 1.6 2.2 6.0 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 10.3 10.5 1.5 13.6 13.6 4.9 0.0 1.6 2.2 6.0 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 427 419 58 414 430 137 0 742 72 715 606 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.59 0.60 0.58 0.76 0.76 0.79 0.00 0.08 0.67 0.28 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 704 690 132 669 695 184 0 742 108 715 606 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.0 27.7 27.7 39.3 29.5 29.5 37.3 0.0 14.4 39.0 17.6 17.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.1 1.3 1.4 8.8 2.9 2.8 14.7 0.0 0.2 10.1 1.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 4.4 4.4 0.8 5.9 6.2 2.7 0.0 0.7 1.1 2.7 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.0 29.0 29.1 48.1 32.4 32.3 52.1 0.0 14.6 49.0 18.5 18.7 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D A B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 550 677 165 415
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.8 33.1 39.1 22.1
Approach LOS C C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 41.3 7.2 26.0 10.9 38.3 7.8 25.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 * 35 6.1 * 33 8.5 * 31 7.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 3.6 3.5 12.5 6.9 8.1 4.2 15.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 741
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P AM
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases. 742
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2035+P AM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 304 5 143 76 1 350
Future Volume (vph) 304 5 143 76 1 350
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 330 5 155 83 1 380
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 40 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 330 1 155 43 1 380
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 17.5 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 17.5 38.0 38.0 0.9 43.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.60
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 424 380 971 825 21 1119
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.00 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.00 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.78 0.00 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.34
Uniform Delay, d1 25.9 21.1 9.1 8.6 35.6 7.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.8
Delay (s) 34.6 21.1 9.5 8.7 36.5 8.1
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 34.4 9.2 8.2
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
743
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P AM
4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 158 7 87 15 4 6 55 628 37 40 1351 187 Future Volume (veh/h) 158 7 87 15 4 6 55 628 37 40 1351 187 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 172 8 95 16 4 7 60 683 40 43 1468 203 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 219 15 182 48 17 29 77 1917 112 65 1742 238
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.56 0.56 0.04 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 125 1479 1781 610 1068 1781 3412 200 1781 3141 429 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 172 0 103 16 0 11 60 356 367 43 823 848 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1604 1781 0 1678 1781 1777 1834 1781 1777 1793 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 5.5 0.8 0.0 0.6 3.1 10.0 10.1 2.2 35.2 36.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 0.0 5.5 0.8 0.0 0.6 3.1 10.0 10.1 2.2 35.2 36.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 219 0 197 48 0 46 77 998 1031 65 986 995 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.52 0.33 0.00 0.24 0.78 0.36 0.36 0.67 0.83 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 363 0 327 731 0 688 165 998 1031 97 986 995 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 0.00 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 39.0 0.0 37.7 43.8 0.0 43.7 43.4 11.0 11.0 43.6 16.9 17.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.0 2.1 3.9 0.0 2.7 15.1 1.0 1.0 11.1 8.3 9.2 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 4.1 0.0 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 1.7 3.9 4.1 1.2 15.2 16.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 0.0 39.8 47.7 0.0 46.4 58.5 12.0 12.0 54.7 25.2 26.5 LnGrp LOS D A D D A D E B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 275 27 783 1714
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.2 47.2 15.6 26.6
Approach LOS D D B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 56.9 17.9 8.5 56.2 9.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 * 52 * 19 8.5 * 47 37.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 12.1 10.6 5.1 38.7 2.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.7 0.0 6.5 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 744
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P AM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 559 59 744 934 124 14 67 53 105 434 88 Future Volume (veh/h) 42 559 59 744 934 124 14 67 53 105 434 88 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 608 64 809 1015 135 15 73 0 114 472 96 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 60 757 337 701 1358 606 30 1181 78 1059 214
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.38 0.38 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2945 595 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 608 64 809 1015 135 15 73 0 114 284 284 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1763 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 18.6 3.8 23.2 28.2 6.6 1.0 1.6 0.0 5.0 13.9 14.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 18.6 3.8 23.2 28.2 6.6 1.0 1.6 0.0 5.0 13.9 14.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 757 337 701 1358 606 30 1181 78 639 634 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.80 0.19 1.15 0.75 0.22 0.51 0.06 1.46 0.44 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 117 1088 485 701 1582 706 78 1181 78 639 634 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.8 42.7 36.9 45.6 30.5 23.9 55.8 26.0 0.0 54.7 27.9 28.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.4 2.9 0.3 84.9 1.7 0.2 12.9 0.1 0.0 265.8 2.2 2.3 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 1.6 8.4 1.5 18.1 12.2 2.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 8.0 6.3 6.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.2 45.6 37.2 130.5 32.2 24.0 68.6 26.1 0.0 320.5 30.1 30.3 LnGrp LOS E D D F C C E C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 718 1959 88 A 682
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.7 72.2 33.4 78.7
Approach LOS D E C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 46.0 27.7 31.1 6.4 49.1 8.3 50.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 38.0 23.2 * 35 5.0 * 38 7.5 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 3.6 25.2 20.6 3.0 16.1 4.9 30.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 8.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 67.2
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 745
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P AM
6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 207 584 332 520 623 36 238 448 436 110 1033 291 Future Volume (veh/h) 207 584 332 520 623 36 238 448 436 110 1033 291 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 635 361 565 677 39 259 487 474 120 1123 316 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 271 906 404 508 1105 64 248 1377 847 168 1000 278 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.05 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3415 197 3456 3554 1585 3456 2746 764 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 225 635 361 565 352 364 259 487 474 120 722 717 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1835 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1733 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 23.7 32.1 21.5 24.5 24.5 10.5 14.2 29.0 5.0 53.3 53.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 23.7 32.1 21.5 24.5 24.5 10.5 14.2 29.0 5.0 53.3 53.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 271 906 404 508 575 594 248 1377 847 168 647 631 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.70 0.89 1.11 0.61 0.61 1.04 0.35 0.56 0.72 1.12 1.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 295 996 444 508 607 627 248 1377 847 300 647 631 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 66.4 49.4 52.6 62.4 41.8 41.8 67.9 31.8 22.6 68.6 46.5 46.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.7 2.0 18.9 74.4 1.7 1.6 69.2 0.7 2.7 5.6 71.6 79.2 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 4.8 10.8 14.9 14.7 11.1 11.4 7.0 6.3 11.5 2.4 36.2 36.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 83.1 51.4 71.5 136.8 43.4 43.4 137.1 32.5 25.3 74.2 118.1 125.7 LnGrp LOS F D E F D D F C C E F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1221 1281 1220 1559
Approach Delay, s/veh 63.2 84.6 51.9 118.2
Approach LOS E F D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 64.2 26.0 44.5 15.0 60.8 16.0 54.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.7 51.1 21.5 41.0 10.5 53.3 12.5 50.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 31.0 23.5 34.1 12.5 55.3 11.4 26.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 82.0
HCM 6th LOS F
746
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P PM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 184 338 234 187 292 70 246 772 297 106 769 83 Future Volume (veh/h) 184 338 234 187 292 70 246 772 297 106 769 83 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 200 367 254 203 317 76 267 839 323 115 836 90 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 233 454 309 235 645 152 198 1272 777 144 1165 520 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2021 1378 1781 2852 674 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 200 322 299 203 196 197 267 839 323 115 836 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1622 1781 1777 1749 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 17.8 18.2 11.6 9.9 10.2 11.5 20.6 13.5 6.6 21.4 4.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 17.8 18.2 11.6 9.9 10.2 11.5 20.6 13.5 6.6 21.4 4.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 233 399 364 235 402 395 198 1272 777 144 1165 520 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.49 0.50 1.35 0.66 0.42 0.80 0.72 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 290 548 501 284 538 530 198 1272 777 263 1165 520 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 44.1 38.1 38.2 44.1 34.9 35.0 46.1 28.0 16.9 46.8 30.6 24.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.8 6.2 7.6 20.2 0.9 1.0 187.6 2.7 1.6 9.6 3.8 0.7 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 6.2 8.3 7.9 6.4 4.4 4.4 15.3 9.0 5.1 3.3 9.6 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.9 44.3 45.8 64.2 35.8 36.0 233.7 30.7 18.6 56.4 34.4 25.5 LnGrp LOS E D D E D D F C B E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 821 596 1429 1041
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.4 45.5 65.9 36.1
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.9 42.7 18.2 29.9 16.0 39.6 18.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.6 4.5 * 6.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.3 * 30 16.5 * 32 11.5 * 34 16.9 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 22.6 13.6 20.2 13.5 23.4 13.4 12.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.1 0.2 3.1 0.0 4.5 0.2 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 747
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P PM
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 153 514 68 15 365 35 83 108 21 30 89 91 Future Volume (veh/h) 153 514 68 15 365 35 83 108 21 30 89 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 166 559 74 16 397 38 90 117 23 33 97 99 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 123 740 98 33 604 58 116 665 131 58 758 642
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3156 417 1781 3279 312 1781 1518 298 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 166 314 319 16 214 221 90 0 140 33 97 99 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1795 1781 1777 1814 1781 0 1817 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 13.1 13.2 0.7 8.9 9.0 4.0 0.0 3.7 1.5 2.6 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 13.1 13.2 0.7 8.9 9.0 4.0 0.0 3.7 1.5 2.6 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 123 417 421 33 328 334 116 0 796 58 758 642 V/C Ratio(X) 1.35 0.75 0.76 0.48 0.65 0.66 0.77 0.00 0.18 0.57 0.13 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 123 687 694 132 691 706 235 0 796 148 758 642 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.1 28.3 28.4 38.7 30.1 30.2 36.7 0.0 13.6 38.0 14.9 15.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 201.6 2.8 2.8 10.3 2.2 2.2 10.3 0.0 0.5 8.5 0.3 0.5 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 9.2 5.7 5.8 0.4 3.9 4.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 0.8 1.1 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 238.7 31.1 31.2 49.0 32.4 32.4 47.0 0.0 14.1 46.5 15.2 15.5 LnGrp LOS F C C D C C D A B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 799 451 230 229
Approach Delay, s/veh 74.3 33.0 27.0 19.9
Approach LOS E C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 41.7 6.0 24.9 9.7 39.1 10.0 20.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.6 * 35 5.9 * 31 10.5 * 31 5.5 * 31 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 5.7 2.7 15.2 6.0 5.2 7.5 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.5 0.1 0.8 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 748
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P PM
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

HCM 6th Edition methodology does not support exclusive ped or hold phases. 749
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2035+P PM 3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 127 1 253 301 6 171
Future Volume (vph) 127 1 253 301 6 171
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1583 1770 1863
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 138 1 275 327 7 186
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 127 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 0 275 200 7 186
Turn Type Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 8.8 41.3 41.3 0.9 47.1
Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 8.8 41.3 41.3 0.9 47.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.70
Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 6.4 6.4 4.5 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 206 1139 968 23 1299
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.00 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.00 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.00 0.24 0.21 0.30 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 27.7 25.5 6.0 5.8 33.0 3.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 7.4 0.2
Delay (s) 31.9 25.5 6.5 6.3 40.3 3.7
Level of Service C C A A D A
Approach Delay (s) 31.8 6.4 5.0
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
750
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P PM
4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/16/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 221 8 80 23 6 0 132 1162 30 43 1043 179 Future Volume (veh/h) 221 8 80 23 6 0 132 1162 30 43 1043 179 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 240 9 87 25 7 0 143 1263 33 47 1134 195 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 309 26 252 58 61 0 180 1556 41 75 1155 198
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 151 1457 1781 1870 0 1781 3538 92 1781 3034 520 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 0 96 25 7 0 143 634 662 47 662 667 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1608 1781 1870 0 1781 1777 1854 1781 1777 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 3.9 1.0 0.3 0.0 5.8 23.0 23.0 1.9 27.2 27.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 3.9 1.0 0.3 0.0 5.8 23.0 23.0 1.9 27.2 27.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 309 0 279 58 61 0 180 781 815 75 676 676 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.34 0.43 0.11 0.00 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.63 0.98 0.99 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 947 0 855 868 911 0 253 781 815 121 676 676 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 0.0 26.9 35.1 34.7 0.0 32.5 18.0 18.0 34.8 22.6 22.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 0.0 0.7 5.0 0.8 0.0 11.0 9.0 8.7 8.5 29.9 31.4 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 4.3 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 3.0 10.5 10.8 1.0 16.0 16.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.4 0.0 27.6 40.1 35.5 0.0 43.5 27.0 26.7 43.3 52.5 54.0 LnGrp LOS C A C D D A D C C D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 336 32 1439 1376
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.8 39.1 28.5 52.9
Approach LOS C D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 37.9 19.4 12.0 33.5 9.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 * 5.4 * 6.6 4.5 * 5.4 6.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 * 33 * 39 10.5 * 26 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 25.0 11.5 7.8 29.5 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 751
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P PM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 142 947 92 439 755 123 69 285 828 56 199 59 Future Volume (veh/h) 142 947 92 439 755 123 69 285 828 56 199 59 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 154 1029 100 477 821 134 75 310 0 61 216 64 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 180 1015 453 429 1096 489 96 1279 71 942 272 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.36 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 2720 786 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 1029 100 477 821 134 75 310 0 61 139 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1729 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.6 35.7 6.0 15.5 26.0 8.0 5.2 7.6 0.0 4.3 6.9 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.6 35.7 6.0 15.5 26.0 8.0 5.2 7.6 0.0 4.3 6.9 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 180 1015 453 429 1096 489 96 1279 71 615 599 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 1.01 0.22 1.11 0.75 0.27 0.78 0.24 0.86 0.23 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 218 1015 453 429 1096 489 164 1279 71 615 599 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.3 44.7 34.0 54.8 38.9 32.7 58.4 28.0 0.0 59.6 29.0 29.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.2 31.7 0.2 77.9 2.9 0.3 13.0 0.4 0.0 60.3 0.9 0.9 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 5.9 20.0 2.4 11.4 11.7 3.1 2.7 3.4 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.4 76.4 34.3 132.7 41.8 33.0 71.5 28.5 0.0 119.9 29.8 30.0 LnGrp LOS E F C F D C E C F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1283 1432 385 A 341
Approach Delay, s/veh 73.3 71.2 36.9 46.0
Approach LOS E E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 53.0 20.0 42.5 11.2 51.3 17.2 45.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 8.0 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 * 8 4.5 * 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 45.0 15.5 * 36 11.5 * 39 15.3 * 36 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 9.6 17.5 37.7 7.2 9.2 12.6 28.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 3.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 65.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 752
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Year 2035+P PM
6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/16/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 318 793 383 454 642 124 379 854 362 122 690 307 Future Volume (veh/h) 318 793 383 454 642 124 379 854 362 122 690 307 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 346 862 416 493 698 135 412 928 393 133 750 334 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 330 987 440 474 948 183 243 1331 811 180 853 379 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 2970 574 3456 3554 1585 3456 2392 1064 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 346 862 416 493 417 416 412 928 393 133 557 527 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1767 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1679 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.3 34.6 38.4 20.5 31.3 31.3 10.5 33.0 24.1 5.7 43.9 44.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.3 34.6 38.4 20.5 31.3 31.3 10.5 33.0 24.1 5.7 43.9 44.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 330 987 440 474 567 564 243 1331 811 180 633 598 V/C Ratio(X) 1.05 0.87 0.95 1.04 0.74 0.74 1.70 0.70 0.48 0.74 0.88 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 330 998 445 474 573 570 243 1331 811 284 633 598 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 67.6 51.5 52.9 64.5 45.3 45.3 69.5 39.6 23.7 69.9 45.1 45.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 62.3 8.6 29.0 52.3 4.9 4.9 331.1 3.0 2.1 5.8 16.0 16.9 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 9.2 16.6 18.8 12.5 14.6 14.6 15.8 15.1 9.5 2.7 22.2 21.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 129.9 60.1 81.9 116.8 50.2 50.3 400.6 42.6 25.8 75.7 61.1 62.0 LnGrp LOS F E F F D D F D C E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1624 1326 1733 1217
Approach Delay, s/veh 80.6 75.0 123.9 63.1
Approach LOS F E F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 63.5 25.0 48.7 15.0 60.8 18.8 54.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.3 51.5 20.5 42.0 10.5 53.3 14.3 48.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 35.0 22.5 40.4 12.5 46.0 16.3 33.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 88.4
HCM 6th LOS F
753
San Marcos Senior Apartment Project September 17, 2019
Page | 66
Appendix H: Queuing Synchro Sheets
754
Queues Existing+Project AM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 506 288 550 197 442 96 60 943 104 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.73 0.86 0.56 0.83 0.33 0.09 0.41 0.87 0.17 Control Delay 52.7 28.3 64.6 31.6 71.0 24.2 2.5 52.7 42.7 1.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 52.7 28.3 64.6 31.6 71.0 24.2 2.5 52.7 42.7 1.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 88 176 152 122 106 0 36 291 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 82 144 #350 207 #264 165 22 82 #448 10 Internal Link Dist (ft) 462 180 665 308
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 220 180 140 190
Base Capacity (vph) 169 1215 335 1452 237 1351 1030 169 1088 599 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.42 0.86 0.38 0.83 0.33 0.09 0.36 0.87 0.17 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
755
Queues Existing+Project AM
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 429 29 550 92 50 41 168 145
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.48 0.22 0.68 0.47 0.06 0.29 0.22 0.20
Control Delay 48.7 26.4 45.1 33.8 46.2 13.7 45.9 21.1 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.7 26.4 45.1 33.8 46.2 13.7 45.9 21.1 4.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 86 16 148 49 11 22 65 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 58 149 46 202 103 37 58 126 41
Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 431 526 362
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 123 1362 132 1389 236 837 148 766 736 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.31 0.22 0.40 0.39 0.06 0.28 0.22 0.20 Intersection Summary
756
Queues Existing+Project AM
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 283 4 133 71 1 325
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.29
Control Delay 32.4 12.8 9.8 3.7 32.0 8.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 32.4 12.8 9.8 3.7 32.0 8.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 0 22 0 0 58
Queue Length 95th (ft) 179 6 73 22 5 128
Internal Link Dist (ft) 383 501 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 614 552 1047 921 131 1106
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.29
Intersection Summary
757
Queues Existing+Project AM
4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 87 14 8 51 619 37 1429
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.30 0.12 0.07 0.50 0.29 0.29 0.69
Control Delay 49.3 13.3 46.8 33.9 63.8 11.4 50.5 17.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 49.3 13.3 46.8 33.9 63.8 11.4 50.5 17.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 3 7 2 27 78 19 247
Queue Length 95th (ft) 157 47 30 18 #90 176 59 526
Internal Link Dist (ft) 262 221 1176 692
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 100
Base Capacity (vph) 351 383 691 662 101 2167 136 2073
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.50 0.29 0.27 0.69 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
758
Queues Existing+Project AM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 520 54 691 867 115 13 63 467 98 486 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.73 0.12 1.01 0.64 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.59 0.96 0.35 Control Delay 63.6 48.3 0.5 82.6 31.7 4.4 59.3 27.7 8.9 135.0 25.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.6 48.3 0.5 82.6 31.7 4.4 59.3 27.7 8.9 135.0 25.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 187 0 ~261 286 0 9 16 33 72 114 Queue Length 95th (ft) 68 245 0 #431 356 34 32 35 140 #196 201 Internal Link Dist (ft) 184 364 576 331
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 110 310 100 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 109 1098 602 684 1590 778 78 1166 791 102 1387 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.47 0.09 1.01 0.55 0.15 0.17 0.05 0.59 0.96 0.35 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
759
Queues Existing+Project AM
6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 542 309 484 613 221 416 405 102 1231 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.74 0.70 0.89 0.63 0.85 0.29 0.40 0.50 0.92 Control Delay 70.8 57.2 35.6 77.3 46.6 90.4 29.6 12.8 72.8 52.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 70.8 57.2 35.6 77.3 46.8 90.4 29.6 12.8 72.8 52.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 241 142 221 253 102 132 138 46 538 Queue Length 95th (ft) 136 304 248 #353 321 #190 194 247 82 #767 Internal Link Dist (ft) 520 407 318 1176
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 280 190 200 180
Base Capacity (vph) 351 1053 570 541 1241 261 1423 1003 216 1336 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 146 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.51 0.54 0.89 0.56 0.85 0.29 0.40 0.47 0.92 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
760
Queues Existing+Project PM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 171 531 174 337 228 717 276 99 714 77 v/c Ratio 0.99 0.73 0.67 0.42 0.94 0.56 0.28 0.60 0.64 0.13 Control Delay 112.6 32.9 53.0 29.8 87.8 28.5 3.1 60.6 32.9 0.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 112.6 32.9 53.0 29.8 87.8 28.5 3.1 60.6 32.9 0.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 116 102 84 141 186 8 59 198 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #274 180 184 123 #327 289 50 #141 304 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 462 180 665 308
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 220 180 140 190
Base Capacity (vph) 173 1211 343 1487 243 1274 1064 173 1115 609 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.44 0.51 0.23 0.94 0.56 0.26 0.57 0.64 0.13 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
761
Queues Existing+Project PM
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 540 14 372 77 120 28 83 85
v/c Ratio 1.17 0.53 0.11 0.57 0.42 0.14 0.21 0.11 0.12
Control Delay 175.4 26.6 41.5 32.9 43.3 14.1 42.3 19.4 1.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 175.4 26.6 41.5 32.9 43.3 14.1 42.3 19.4 1.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~88 115 7 90 37 25 14 27 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #235 197 28 134 89 83 44 69 11
Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 431 526 362
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 121 1342 129 1355 231 875 145 746 713 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 0.40 0.11 0.27 0.33 0.14 0.19 0.11 0.12 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
762
Queues Existing+Project PM
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 1 235 279 5 159
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.03 0.12
Control Delay 28.6 17.0 6.7 1.9 27.6 4.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.6 17.0 6.7 1.9 27.6 4.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 0 29 0 2 18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 82 4 95 34 11 43
Internal Link Dist (ft) 383 501 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 672 601 1273 1170 143 1337
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.03 0.12
Intersection Summary
763
Queues Existing+Project PM
4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 205 82 22 5 123 1108 40 1136
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.25 0.18 0.04 1.29 0.55 0.34 0.61
Control Delay 53.9 13.2 49.9 46.8 229.8 17.4 55.0 19.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.9 13.2 49.9 46.8 229.8 17.4 55.0 19.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 131 5 14 3 ~111 284 26 288
Queue Length 95th (ft) #220 47 40 15 #234 370 62 374
Internal Link Dist (ft) 262 221 1176 692
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 100
Base Capacity (vph) 329 360 648 683 95 2032 127 1851
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.23 0.03 0.01 1.29 0.55 0.31 0.61 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
764
Queues Existing+Project PM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 879 86 408 701 114 64 266 770 52 240 v/c Ratio 1.38 0.89 0.15 0.75 0.52 0.17 0.88 0.23 1.00 0.56 0.21 Control Delay 265.8 53.9 0.6 58.0 29.7 4.0 133.0 31.7 54.1 79.9 26.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 265.8 53.9 0.6 58.0 29.7 4.0 133.0 31.7 54.1 79.9 26.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~139 346 0 159 216 0 51 83 ~436 41 62 Queue Length 95th (ft) #276 #470 0 214 273 32 #146 123 #698 #98 98 Internal Link Dist (ft) 184 364 576 331
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 110 310 100 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 96 1032 575 643 1510 745 73 1168 772 96 1135 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.38 0.85 0.15 0.63 0.46 0.15 0.88 0.23 1.00 0.54 0.21 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
765
Queues Existing+Project PM
6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 296 737 355 422 712 352 793 337 114 926 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.81 0.65 0.86 0.68 1.42 0.59 0.36 0.58 0.73 Control Delay 92.8 58.8 27.4 79.6 46.9 257.0 39.0 15.0 79.8 42.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 92.8 58.8 27.4 79.6 48.4 257.0 39.0 15.0 79.8 42.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 150 350 141 210 305 ~241 332 141 57 397 Queue Length 95th (ft) #241 427 255 #293 375 #347 403 211 92 482 Internal Link Dist (ft) 520 407 318 1176
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 280 190 200 180
Base Capacity (vph) 333 999 584 513 1166 248 1346 946 205 1268 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 269 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.74 0.61 0.82 0.79 1.42 0.59 0.36 0.56 0.73 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
766
Queues Near Term+Project AM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 63 531 302 577 207 464 100 63 990 110 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.75 0.91 0.57 0.88 0.35 0.10 0.43 0.92 0.18 Control Delay 54.0 29.8 72.5 31.8 78.8 24.9 2.5 54.0 48.2 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.0 29.8 72.5 31.8 78.8 24.9 2.5 54.0 48.2 2.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 99 189 161 130 114 0 38 316 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 85 156 #378 218 #286 176 23 85 #493 13 Internal Link Dist (ft) 462 180 665 308
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 220 180 140 190
Base Capacity (vph) 167 1204 332 1440 235 1338 1023 167 1079 595 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.44 0.91 0.40 0.88 0.35 0.10 0.38 0.92 0.18 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
767
Queues Near Term+Project AM
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 451 30 577 97 53 43 177 152
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.54 0.23 0.69 0.50 0.06 0.31 0.23 0.21
Control Delay 50.0 28.6 46.0 33.8 47.6 14.0 46.9 21.7 4.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 50.0 28.6 46.0 33.8 47.6 14.0 46.9 21.7 4.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 110 16 157 52 12 24 71 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 61 157 47 213 108 39 60 135 42
Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 431 526 362
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 122 1348 131 1374 233 829 147 756 733 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.33 0.23 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.29 0.23 0.21 Intersection Summary
768
Queues Near Term+Project AM
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 297 4 139 74 1 341
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.31
Control Delay 32.8 12.2 10.0 3.7 32.0 8.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 32.8 12.2 10.0 3.7 32.0 8.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 113 0 23 0 0 64
Queue Length 95th (ft) 188 6 77 23 5 136
Internal Link Dist (ft) 383 501 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 610 548 1039 915 130 1097
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.31
Intersection Summary
769
Queues Near Term+Project AM
4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 92 15 8 53 650 39 1501
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.31 0.12 0.07 0.52 0.30 0.31 0.73
Control Delay 49.7 13.0 46.9 33.9 65.0 11.7 51.0 19.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 49.7 13.0 46.9 33.9 65.0 11.7 51.0 19.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 3 8 2 29 85 20 272
Queue Length 95th (ft) 163 49 31 18 #95 187 61 575
Internal Link Dist (ft) 262 221 1176 692
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 100
Base Capacity (vph) 352 387 693 664 102 2153 136 2061
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.52 0.30 0.29 0.73 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
770
Queues Near Term+Project AM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 546 58 726 911 121 14 66 491 102 510 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.73 0.13 1.07 0.66 0.17 0.18 0.06 0.63 1.02 0.37 Control Delay 65.6 48.0 0.6 100.2 32.0 4.7 61.0 28.5 11.2 149.5 26.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.6 48.0 0.6 100.2 32.0 4.7 61.0 28.5 11.2 149.5 26.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 198 0 ~301 306 0 10 17 50 ~76 122 Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 257 0 #480 377 37 34 37 179 #210 219 Internal Link Dist (ft) 184 364 576 331
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 110 310 100 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 108 1085 597 676 1572 771 77 1153 782 100 1372 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.50 0.10 1.07 0.58 0.16 0.18 0.06 0.63 1.02 0.37 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
771
Queues Near Term+Project AM
6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 570 324 508 644 232 437 426 108 1292 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.73 0.71 0.95 0.64 0.90 0.31 0.43 0.53 0.98 Control Delay 73.0 56.6 37.5 87.6 46.7 99.5 30.9 14.5 75.0 62.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 73.0 56.6 37.5 87.6 47.1 99.5 30.9 14.5 75.0 62.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 92 255 161 239 271 109 144 163 50 599 Queue Length 95th (ft) 144 321 270 #388 338 #208 208 284 88 #853 Internal Link Dist (ft) 520 407 318 1176
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 280 190 200 180
Base Capacity (vph) 346 1038 561 533 1224 258 1400 986 213 1317 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 179 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.55 0.58 0.95 0.62 0.90 0.31 0.43 0.51 0.98 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
772
Queues Near Term+Project PM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 179 557 183 353 240 753 290 104 750 82 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.74 0.69 0.42 1.00 0.60 0.29 0.64 0.68 0.14 Control Delay 129.1 33.5 54.5 29.5 104.5 30.1 4.0 63.9 34.8 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 129.1 33.5 54.5 29.5 104.5 30.1 4.0 63.9 34.8 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~124 127 109 89 ~155 204 17 64 216 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #291 192 196 128 #351 311 63 #152 326 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 462 180 665 308
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 220 180 140 190
Base Capacity (vph) 170 1193 337 1462 239 1250 1043 170 1096 602 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.05 0.47 0.54 0.24 1.00 0.60 0.28 0.61 0.68 0.14 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
773
Queues Near Term+Project PM
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 150 567 15 392 82 126 29 87 89
v/c Ratio 1.25 0.55 0.12 0.59 0.44 0.14 0.21 0.12 0.13
Control Delay 200.9 26.9 41.9 33.1 44.3 14.5 42.9 19.9 1.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 200.9 26.9 41.9 33.1 44.3 14.5 42.9 19.9 1.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~98 123 7 96 40 27 14 28 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #250 206 29 141 94 88 45 73 14
Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 431 526 362
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 120 1335 129 1346 229 871 144 740 709 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.25 0.42 0.12 0.29 0.36 0.14 0.20 0.12 0.13 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
774
Queues Near Term+Project PM
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 124 1 247 293 5 166
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.00 0.19 0.25 0.03 0.12
Control Delay 28.9 17.0 6.9 1.9 27.8 4.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.9 17.0 6.9 1.9 27.8 4.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 42 0 31 0 2 19
Queue Length 95th (ft) 86 4 100 36 11 45
Internal Link Dist (ft) 383 501 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 670 600 1270 1172 143 1334
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.25 0.03 0.12
Intersection Summary
775
Queues Near Term+Project PM
4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 215 85 23 5 129 1164 42 1192
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.25 0.19 0.04 1.37 0.58 0.36 0.65
Control Delay 54.5 12.9 50.0 46.6 256.9 18.1 55.8 20.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.5 12.9 50.0 46.6 256.9 18.1 55.8 20.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 138 5 15 3 ~120 306 28 311
Queue Length 95th (ft) #243 48 41 15 #244 396 65 402
Internal Link Dist (ft) 262 221 1176 692
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 100
Base Capacity (vph) 327 360 644 677 94 2015 126 1837
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.24 0.04 0.01 1.37 0.58 0.33 0.65 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
776
Queues Near Term+Project PM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 923 90 428 736 120 67 279 808 54 253 v/c Ratio 1.35 0.92 0.16 0.77 0.54 0.17 0.93 0.24 1.05 0.68 0.23 Control Delay 254.1 58.2 0.6 59.1 30.3 4.5 145.5 31.5 69.6 96.6 27.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 254.1 58.2 0.6 59.1 30.3 4.5 145.5 31.5 69.6 96.6 27.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~145 374 0 169 232 0 54 87 ~509 43 67 Queue Length 95th (ft) #283 #510 0 226 292 36 #151 126 #770 #114 104 Internal Link Dist (ft) 184 364 576 331
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 110 310 100 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 102 1021 571 636 1479 732 72 1176 769 80 1124 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.35 0.90 0.16 0.67 0.50 0.16 0.93 0.24 1.05 0.68 0.23 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
777
Queues Near Term+Project PM
6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 311 774 373 442 747 370 834 353 120 973 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.84 0.68 0.90 0.69 1.50 0.63 0.38 0.61 0.77 Control Delay 102.6 60.6 31.1 83.6 47.4 291.3 40.5 15.6 81.8 44.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 102.6 60.6 31.1 83.6 49.7 291.3 40.5 15.6 81.8 44.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 159 373 169 222 324 ~261 355 152 60 428 Queue Length 95th (ft) #257 453 290 #315 397 #369 428 224 95 516 Internal Link Dist (ft) 520 407 318 1176
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 280 190 200 180
Base Capacity (vph) 330 990 573 508 1155 246 1331 937 204 1256 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 268 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.78 0.65 0.87 0.84 1.50 0.63 0.38 0.59 0.77 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
778
Queues Year 2035+P AM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 70 591 337 643 230 517 112 70 1104 122 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.80 0.88 0.55 0.93 0.39 0.11 0.49 1.04 0.22 Control Delay 72.2 44.2 73.9 36.1 98.6 33.0 2.6 69.5 82.8 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 72.2 44.2 73.9 36.1 98.6 33.0 2.6 69.5 82.8 6.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 181 275 228 194 171 0 57 ~527 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 248 #485 295 #385 256 28 111 #736 44 Internal Link Dist (ft) 462 180 665 308
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 220 180 140 190
Base Capacity (vph) 168 1101 390 1467 246 1334 1054 292 1062 565 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.54 0.86 0.44 0.93 0.39 0.11 0.24 1.04 0.22 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
779
Queues Year 2035+P AM
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 502 34 643 108 57 48 197 170
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.54 0.27 0.72 0.64 0.07 0.46 0.29 0.25
Control Delay 48.2 27.5 48.4 34.4 59.0 15.2 58.7 23.7 5.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.2 27.5 48.4 34.4 59.0 15.2 58.7 23.7 5.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 122 19 180 62 14 28 84 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 170 53 238 #152 44 #79 156 46 Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 431 526 362
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 157 1344 127 1293 178 820 104 688 692 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.37 0.27 0.50 0.61 0.07 0.46 0.29 0.25 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
780
Queues Year 2035+P AM
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 330 5 155 83 1 380
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.01 0.15 0.09 0.01 0.35
Control Delay 34.4 11.8 10.4 3.6 32.0 9.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 34.4 11.8 10.4 3.6 32.0 9.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 128 0 28 0 0 78
Queue Length 95th (ft) 211 7 84 24 5 154
Internal Link Dist (ft) 383 501 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 600 540 1022 906 128 1080
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.01 0.15 0.09 0.01 0.35
Intersection Summary
781
Queues Year 2035+P AM
4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 103 16 11 60 723 43 1671
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.32 0.13 0.09 0.41 0.36 0.45 0.90
Control Delay 50.2 12.3 47.7 32.9 53.4 13.8 62.7 31.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 50.2 12.3 47.7 32.9 53.4 13.8 62.7 31.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 4 10 2 37 141 27 ~574
Queue Length 95th (ft) 177 51 32 21 83 205 #75 #800
Internal Link Dist (ft) 262 221 1176 692
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 100
Base Capacity (vph) 358 400 719 689 162 2002 95 1862
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.48 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.37 0.36 0.45 0.90 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
782
Queues Year 2035+P AM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 608 64 809 1015 135 15 73 58 114 568 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.75 0.13 1.19 0.74 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.09 1.52 0.43 Control Delay 68.1 48.0 0.6 139.7 35.0 6.0 63.1 29.1 0.3 326.9 29.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.1 48.0 0.6 139.7 35.0 6.0 63.1 29.1 0.3 326.9 29.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 225 0 ~376 354 6 11 20 0 ~119 150 Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 288 0 #550 433 46 36 41 0 #255 251 Internal Link Dist (ft) 184 364 576 331
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 110 310 100 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 113 1060 587 682 1542 758 75 1151 616 75 1321 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.57 0.11 1.19 0.66 0.18 0.20 0.06 0.09 1.52 0.43 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
783
Queues Year 2035+P AM
6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 225 635 361 565 716 259 487 474 120 1439 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.77 0.74 1.09 0.68 1.02 0.37 0.50 0.49 1.11 Control Delay 82.2 57.4 37.3 121.7 47.0 126.8 34.3 18.0 71.5 101.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 82.2 57.4 37.3 121.7 47.7 126.8 34.3 18.0 71.5 101.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 291 182 ~304 307 ~131 172 212 56 ~796 Queue Length 95th (ft) #175 361 301 #454 376 #240 244 355 92 #1014 Internal Link Dist (ft) 520 407 318 1176
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 280 190 200 180
Base Capacity (vph) 301 1018 566 518 1235 253 1332 948 305 1297 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 231 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.62 0.64 1.09 0.71 1.02 0.37 0.50 0.39 1.11 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
784
Queues Year 2035+P PM
1: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 621 203 393 267 839 323 115 836 90 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.54 1.36 0.72 0.34 0.58 0.72 0.15 Control Delay 63.6 35.6 65.0 37.1 226.5 36.9 5.8 56.7 35.8 3.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 63.6 35.6 65.0 37.1 226.5 36.9 5.8 56.7 35.8 3.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 127 158 130 117 ~236 260 27 74 257 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #253 221 #263 164 #435 #420 95 139 371 21 Internal Link Dist (ft) 462 180 665 308
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 220 180 140 190
Base Capacity (vph) 290 1135 283 1064 197 1164 968 262 1167 602 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.55 0.72 0.37 1.36 0.72 0.33 0.44 0.72 0.15 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
785
Queues Year 2035+P PM
2: Woodward St. & Borden Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 633 16 435 90 140 33 97 99
v/c Ratio 1.44 0.61 0.13 0.57 0.49 0.17 0.25 0.14 0.14
Control Delay 273.1 29.2 44.9 32.0 48.6 17.7 46.5 22.0 2.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 273.1 29.2 44.9 32.0 48.6 17.7 46.5 22.0 2.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~121 145 8 111 45 42 17 33 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #286 232 31 156 106 102 51 84 20 Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 431 526 362
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100
Base Capacity (vph) 115 1285 124 1296 221 800 139 718 692 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.44 0.49 0.13 0.34 0.41 0.17 0.24 0.14 0.14 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
786
Queues Year 2035+P PM
3: Woodward St. & Vineyard Rd. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 138 1 275 327 7 186
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.00 0.22 0.28 0.05 0.14
Control Delay 29.5 17.0 7.2 2.0 28.7 4.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.5 17.0 7.2 2.0 28.7 4.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 48 0 36 0 2 23
Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 4 114 38 14 52
Internal Link Dist (ft) 383 501 492
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150
Base Capacity (vph) 649 581 1264 1179 141 1328
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.00 0.22 0.28 0.05 0.14
Intersection Summary
787
Queues Year 2035+P PM
4: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Richmar Ave. 09/17/2019
Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 240 96 25 7 143 1296 47 1329
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.24 0.16 0.04 0.59 0.80 0.41 1.11
Control Delay 39.0 9.6 39.4 37.7 46.3 27.4 50.4 90.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 39.0 9.6 39.4 37.7 46.3 27.4 50.4 90.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 116 4 12 3 71 329 24 ~447
Queue Length 95th (ft) 196 41 39 17 #168 #565 #71 #671
Internal Link Dist (ft) 262 221 1176 692
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 100
Base Capacity (vph) 914 873 837 881 244 1613 116 1195
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.59 0.80 0.41 1.11 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
788
Queues Year 2035+P PM
5: E. San Marcos Blvd./Woodward St. & E. Mission Rd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 1029 100 477 821 134 75 310 900 61 280 v/c Ratio 0.77 1.02 0.18 1.12 0.78 0.23 0.54 0.24 1.17 0.87 0.24 Control Delay 78.6 77.3 1.2 130.6 46.4 3.8 69.5 28.7 113.2 135.3 27.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.6 77.3 1.2 130.6 46.4 3.8 69.5 28.7 113.2 135.3 27.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 121 ~463 0 ~228 323 0 59 91 ~692 50 77 Queue Length 95th (ft) #218 #597 5 #338 403 30 110 128 #947 #137 115 Internal Link Dist (ft) 184 364 576 331
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 110 310 100 250 200
Base Capacity (vph) 216 1010 567 425 1055 585 162 1274 772 70 1191 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 1.02 0.18 1.12 0.78 0.23 0.46 0.24 1.17 0.87 0.24 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
789
Queues Year 2035+P PM
6: Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & E. San Marcos Blvd. 09/17/2019 Lanikai Senior Apartments 04/23/2018 Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 346 862 416 493 833 412 928 393 133 1084 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.89 0.73 1.04 0.76 1.70 0.74 0.44 0.54 0.87 Control Delay 126.3 63.8 33.9 113.8 49.9 372.2 46.5 19.0 75.0 51.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 126.3 63.8 33.9 113.8 57.1 372.2 46.5 19.0 75.0 51.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~190 424 206 ~270 376 ~305 420 190 65 502 Queue Length 95th (ft) #295 511 338 #387 456 #415 508 281 101 600 Internal Link Dist (ft) 520 407 318 1176
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 280 190 200 180
Base Capacity (vph) 329 998 583 473 1129 242 1262 891 283 1242 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 252 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.05 0.86 0.71 1.04 0.95 1.70 0.74 0.44 0.47 0.87 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
790

ATTACHMENT G

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800

ATTACHMENT H
VMT LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2025
801
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com
T
F
April 10, 2025
Via Mail, and Email ([email protected])
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
960 Canterbury Pl # 300
Escondido, CA 92025
760.743.1201x137
Re: Lanikai Residential Project – VMT Issue
Dear Punam:

During our phone conference last month, we discussed whether the Lanikai project would require a VMT analysis as part of its CEQA package. I indicated that, based on IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 123-124, a VMT analysis is not required where a project’s Level of Service (LOS) traffic study was undertaken before the effective date of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. The question – which neither of us could answer at the time – was whether Lanikai had conducted an LOS traffic analysis prior to July 1, 2020, i.e., the effective date of the VMT guideline.

I can now answer that question. Attached is a letter from the City of San Marcos (“City”), dated November 19, 2018. On page 5 under “CEQA”, it states “You submitted Biological Resources Letter Report prepared by Helix Environmental Planning and Traffic Report prepared by Urban Systems Associates with your second submittal on October 25, 2018.” The City initially rejected the biology and traffic reports on grounds that Helix and Urban Systems were not on the City’s approved consultant list. However, after Lanikai objected to the City’s position, the City approved the two consultants and accepted their reports.

The traffic items submitted to the City on 10/25/18 include: (1) Traffic Impact Analysis; (2) Line of Site Study; and (3) Driveway Memo (left out at Woodward). Here’s a link to those files:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/mgss03n99sxu6agysa7f7/AEYD-rWAq2rc34- aGauZHUY?rlkey=o1qsgolclxh1qb4wszeoq9dqy&st=y934037g&dl=0 Based on this information, it is clear that Lanikai prepared and submitted its LOS traffic study in the fall of 2018, well before the July 1, 2020 effective date of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

It is equally clear that the City accepted that traffic study prior to July 1, 2020 as well. Therefore, under IBC Business Owners, Lanikai is not required to prepare a VMT analysis for its project. See, Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 926, citing IBC Business Owners.
802
Punam Prahalad
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak
April 10, 2025

Page 2 ends

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

LAWYERS
Please review these materials and let me know if you agree with my position. If you would like to discuss the matter, I am happy to do so.

Sincerely,
David P. Hubbard
of
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
cc: Larry Jett
Greg Scaduto
Rick Gittings
Attachment: Letter from the City, dated November 19, 2018 803
November 19, 2018 VIA Email: [email protected]
VIA U.S. Mail
Matt Simmons
Consultants Collaborative
160 Industrial Street, Suite 200
San Marcos, CA 92078
RE: SP17-0004/GPA17-0003/SDP17-0010 – Development of a 115 unit age-restricted residential apartment units
APN: 220-063-04
Mr. Simmons,
Thank you for re-submitting the proposed project to the City for processing of your application.

Pursuant to Section 65943 of the California Government Code, the above referenced application has been deemed incomplete per the minimum standard submittal requirements. In order to continue processing your application, please submit the following items:
• General Plan Amendment: The City’s General Plan – Mobility Element identifies a bridge to be constructed at the site to improve overall connectivity in this region of the City. As your project is designed without this bridge, you would have to process a General Plan Amendment to remove the requirement of the bridge at your site. The requested General Plan Amendment to remove the bridge from the Mobility Element should be substantiated with studies to determine any city-wide or area specific impacts.
• Specific Plan Amendment: The Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOC SP) identifies the project site as “Commercial”, which is now proposed to be developed as a Senior Residential Project.

This change in land use requires supplemental studies to be submitted as listed in the attachment. Please submit the supplemental studies identified in the attachment (Public Benefit Analysis, Land Use Analysis, Infrastructure and Community Services Impact Analysis, Redlined HOCSP and General Plan). Note that the City will retain its own consultants to conduct Fiscal and Market Analysis. Once a scope of work is established for the Fiscal and Market Analysis, it will be forwarded to you. You will be responsible to pay the cost of the study plus the City’s 25% administration fees.

ATTACHMENT
804
2 • The CAP consistency checklist, as submitted remains incomplete pending information from the project architect and completion of GHG analysis.

In addition to the incomplete items identified above, the following comments must be addressed:
• The Citywide Zoning Ordinance’s Senior Residential (SR) Zone’s development standards are specific to housing and assisted life care facilities for the older adults. The development standards are designed to allow for residential care facilities and other similar uses. Your proposed project is essentially a multi-family residential project which is age restricted. The standards for care facilities are not intended to be applicable to residential/apartment projects.

Additionally your project’s density is not consistent with Section 20.220.020- ‘Senior Residential Zone” which states that this zone implements Medium Density Residential (MDR2) land use designation of the General Plan. The allowed density in MDR2 is 15 – 20 units per acre. Your project’s proposed density is 29 units/acre.
• Pursuant to Section 20.220.050 (B) (1) a MFSDP will be required to be processed for this project, instead of an SDP since the project will function similar to a multi-family project. • The project site is currently designated for Commercial uses in the HOC SP. The proposed project, however is a residential/apartments project for seniors. Although your project is asking to change the designated land use of the site, the project still needs to be designed to be in compliance with the HOC SP’s overall vision and development standards that are specific to the structure’s massing, scale and design features and should maintain compatible scale with the surrounding development. A similar zone in HOC-SP is High Density Multi-Family Residential (HOC SP-HDMFR).
• Density: The project is proposing a density of 29 units per acre, which is higher than what is allowed in the Citywide SR zone (15-20 units/acre) and HOC SP-HDMFR zone (15-20 units per acre).
• Height: The project’s height (50 feet) and massing (4 stories) is not consistent with HOC SP’s standards of 45 feet for the HDMFR zone and 35 feet for Commercial Zone. The allowed height of 50 feet/4 stories in the City-wide SR zone is intended for institutions that provide for extended care for older adults such as residential care facilities and is not applicable to apartment projects, as is the case with this project. As seen from the submitted visual sims for the project’s four stories high structure is not compatible with the surrounding development. • Massing: The project is proposing four stories with a height of 50’, above a proposed pad which is 5 feet higher from the current adjacent grade of Mission Road. As seen from the submitted elevations, site sections and visual sims, the project is massive and out of scale with the surrounding development. City’s suggestion is to break up the massive structure and provide a plaza in the middle to provide improved pedestrian connections to the street, emphasize pedestrian scale by creating a central entry point along the street and break up the mass of the 805
3 structure. The plaza will connect pedestrians from the interior of the project/central access into the project to the sidewalk at the intersection of Mission Road and Woodward Street. • Setbacks: Your proposed setbacks are not consistent with the Commercial and HOC SPHDMFR zones. As the project is designed as an apartment/residential project, the setbacks should be consistent with a residential zone as stipulated in the Specific Plan. Please revise the project design.
• Please confirm (on site plan) how lot coverage, landscaping coverage and FAR are calculated for the project. Are you including gross lot area of 3.96 acres, inclusive of Open Space? Which areas are considered “landscaping” to be counted in landscaping coverage? • Parking: Please identify the size of a typical parking stall on your plans (9’x18’). Please show wheel stops in the middle parking isles and identify if there will be any conflicts with tree planters with clear space of 9’x18’.
• Show sufficient back out space for cars for the parking spaces proposed across temporary loading/unloading areas and adjacent to the pool area.
• Show the location and infrastructure of EV spaces as required by Cal Green Code. • Site Design: Please show the location of HVAC room. Is water heating provided at a central location? Please show the location of water heating room. • It is unclear where the above ground utilities are proposed and how they are screened from the public view. Please provide an exhibit to show all the proposed dry utilities, above ground utilities boxes, fire hydrants and identify if there is any conflict with sidewalks and proposed landscaping. The landscape plans should be revised to be consistent with this information. • Per your responses provided to City’s first incomplete letter, a mater meter room might be provided to house electric and gas meters for the units. Please show the location of this room.

If they are proposed outside the building, please show how these will be screened. • It is unclear why the elevator shaft is not identified on the roof plan and elevations. Please show details of the elevator to confirm if the elevator shaft is not going to extend above the roofline. • Architecture: The project is not consistent with the architectural guidelines as provided in the HOC SP. Provide a table to list all the architectural details that you are proposing and compare it with the requirements in the HOC SP. In general, the project design needs to be enhanced to provide variations in the façade to break the monotony of the design, articulation of wall planes to avoid large expanses of plane walls, combination of heights to break up the mass and use of architectural finish materials on the exteriors.
806
4 • Confirm the size of balconies is 50 sf. And provide a note on the plans. • Please note the project is subject to Art in Public Places and Landscaping guidelines of the HOC SP. Please confirm how your project will comply with these requirements. • The engineering plans need to be stamped by a registered engineer.

Redlined Specific Plan (HOC SP):
• Table 1: Include “intensity” and “type” of the proposed project in the table. • It is unclear why you are inserting a new land use ‘Senior Residential” in the 2.3-Business Districts instead of 2.1-Residential Districts?
• Chapter 3.3 - Architectural Guidelines: The Senior Residential architectural guidelines are proposed in 3.3.3 – Business Park. The guidelines should be added in section 3.3.1- Residential.
• Architectural Character: The description of architectural character should define a style which is compatible with other similar projects (multi-family) in the HOC SP area and multi-family residential project along Mission Road.
• Although you have included “Large expanses of flat wall planes vertically or horizontally” as prohibited in the design guidelines, your project is designed with flat walls. • Solar panels cannot be allowed to supplement share trees within parking areas. More discussion is needed if your project is considering solar panels on share structures and how it will be designed to be integrated in the overall design. The number of trees required for parking areas shall not reduced.
• Chapter 4-Development Standards: Please see comments on various development standards in this letter, which would have to be included in the amended SP. The new Development Standards should be included in the Residential Districts or create a new table specific to this site.
• Please confirm why you are including “Health and Athletic Gyms and Weight Reduction Clinics - Accessory Health/Athletic” and “Medical Emergency Care Facilities” as conditionally permitted uses and “Private Recreation Buildings or Facilities” as permitted use in the proposed SR zone.

Landscaping Plan:
• Landscaping: Please correct conflicting items regarding the water efficiency projections, including (but not limited to):
• Proposed plants water-use listed as less than presented on the wucols list • Declaring lower Plant Factor for hydrozones than indicated by the plants • Hydrozone keymap misidentification of a several areas • Please use the City’s Water Efficiency Worksheet, rather than your version. It is helpful in ensuring the information is logically (and consistently) presented and calculations can be 807
5 checked easily. This also assists in City’s record keeping. Please see redlined comments on the plans
Lighting Plan:
• Please include height of the lighting fixtures in the table provided on E 1. Please provide colored cut sheets to determine the lighting fixtures color scheme and to show how it complies with the overall architectural/design theme for the project.

CEQA:
• As disclosed to you in the previous letter dated January 16, 2018, the project is not exempt from the provisions of CEQA and therefore needs technical studies for the appropriate CEQA document. At a minimum the project will need Biological Resources Analysis, Noise Report, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Cultural Resources Analysis and Traffic Impact Analysis. The previous letter informed you that you have the option to retain a CEQA consultant from the City’s qualified consultant’s lists, however the project description and scope of studies should be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to any work on any of the studies is done.
• You submitted Biological Resources Letter Report prepared by Helix Environment Planning and Traffic Report prepared by Urban Systems Associates with your second submittal on October 25, 2018. The City is rejecting these studies since the two consultants are not on the City’s qualified consultants list and the studies scope was not submitted to the City for approval.
• Please comply with the information provided in this letter and on the City’s web site on the process to retain qualified CEQA consultants and conduct environmental analysis. • Alternatively, if the City were to prepare the CEQA document, note that the City will hire a CEQA consultant. The applicant will be responsible to pay the cost of the CEQA document, any technical studies and administrative fees of 25% of the total contract to the City.

Engineering Department:
• Utility crossing data shall be provided on the proposed sewer line as it crosses the storm water culvert.
• An easement is required for construction of the sewer line on the adjacent property to the west. • The infiltration rate provided by the geotechnical report did not analyze the infiltration at the location of the proposed infiltration basin. Additional testing will be required during final engineering to confirm infiltration rates and suitability. • Please provide the necessary worksheets for DMA-2 to ensure the pervious pavement proposed is adequately sized for pollutant control.
• Please provide details of the permeable pavement on the plans. • The Simple Method Infiltration calculations for the proprietary infiltration basin shall be revised to incorporate the porosity value of stone aggregrate which is included with the infiltration size of 808
6 the BMP and the actual storage volume per inch of depth within the stormtech chamber. The simple method worksheet is intended to be used for a conventional infiltration basin. • Infiltration basins require a forebay with a volume of at least 25% of the DCV to trap sediment.

Please clarify how this design criteria is achieved in the proposed design. • Please provide a detail on the plans which illustrates the outlet from the stormtech chambers above the water quality volume storage depth.
• The SWMM Model will be reviewed and approved during the final engineering phase. Please note that the City requires the use of the Escondido rain gage, not the Oceanside rain gage for hydromodification analysis.
• Section B-B of the underground chambers does not match the plan view. The section provided shows seven rows whereas only six rows are drawn on the plan view. Please review and revise accordingly.
• It is recommended that a grading variance be added to the entitlement package for review and approval. The current grading scheme includes slopes and walls in combination of 20' and potentially slightly over 20'. This can be illustrated by drawing section A-A on the civil drawings through the high point of the driveway entrance to the proposed parking stalls. • Based on the current contours depicted on the plans, it appears that a 0" curb is proposed along the northerly driveway. Please confirm and consider adding guardrail along the edge of the driveway.
• Proposed trees are shown on-site within steep slopes adjacent to the right of way lines. Please provide adequate setback from the right of way to ensure the tree roots do not damage the sidewalk and any appurtenances for the tree are contained entirely on the project site. • The elevation for the discharge pipe from the infiltration chambers to the creek is set at the creek's 10-year water surface elevation. A flap gate may be required to be installed on this discharge pipe during final engineering review to prevent backwater effects during larger storms.
• The proposed development indicates construction within the 100-year floodway. Based on the Twin Oaks Valley Creek Conditional Letter of Map Revision dated 11/2017 prepared by NV5, Inc., the base flood elevation increases by 0.24'. As such, all requirements from Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations shall be complied with on the CLOMR submittal. Please provide additional materials as required by aforementioned section including, but not limited to the evaluation of alternative development designs which would NOT result in a base flood elevation increase and discussion why this alternative is not feasible.

Vallecitos Water District:
• Please keep the City informed on when the water and sewer study is completed to be included in the CEQA analysis for the project.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (760) 744-1050, extension 3222.
809
7 Sincerely,
Saima Qureshy, AICP
Principal Planner
[email protected]
Attachments:

Supplemental Requirements for Specific Plan Amendment
Redlined landscape plans and sample WELO worksheet
810
1 LANIKAI PROJECT | APPEAL 26-0004
Staff Analysis of Appeal
September 1, 2026
Project Information
Project SP17-0004 | 115-unit age-restricted senior apartment project Environmental
Document Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ND26-007
Administrative
Decision ADM 2026-5226
Appeal AA26-0004
Purpose: This document outlines City staff’s analysis of whether the current applicant-prepared MND is presently sufficiently accurate, stable, supported, and internally consistent for the City to circulate it as the City's proposed environmental document.

Summary
Lanikai Management (“Applicant”) proposes a 115-unit, age-restricted senior apartment project on approximately 3.96 acres at the northwest corner of East Mission Road and Woodward Street (Assessor Parcel Number 220-063-04-00) (the “Project”).

The development application was originally submitted on December 21, 2017. The Applicant prepared Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ND26-007 (the “MND”) and first submitted it to the City in 2024. After several iterations of the draft, on July 2, 2026, the City Manager issued Administrative Decision ADM 2026-5226, determining that the MND was not sufficiently complete or adequate to begin public circulation. The Applicant appealed that decision to the City Council with AA26-0004.

A proposed MND represents the lead agency's preliminary environmental determination, including the proposition that the Project as revised will not have a significant environmental effect and that the record contains no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that it may. The City therefore must be able to identify the Project being analyzed and understand the factual and technical basis for the proposed conclusions before it circulates the document.

Appeal Question: Can the City, as CEQA lead agency, circulate the current MND as a proposed environmental document that reflects the City's independent judgment and is supported by an accurate Project description and an adequate factual record?
The current MND is not ready for circulation because the City cannot yet support the physical Project and factual record on which the document's proposed environmental conclusions depend. The problem is not the result of a single issue but instead a set of independent and interrelated deficiencies that affect the Project description, including site access, emergency access, and frontage improvements; supporting technical studies; and insufficient analysis to support the requisite finding that the Project will not have a significant environmental impact.

Three core principles inform this analysis and are discussed in detail in Section 3:
811
2 1. Principle One: City’s Independent judgment and local authority. The City must exercise independent judgment before circulation. The City is not required to transmit an applicant-prepared document that City staff and responsible officials cannot support as the City's proposed environmental analysis.

2. Principle Two: Analyze a coherent, stable, sufficiently resolved, and complete Project. The MND must analyze a coherent, stable, sufficiently resolved, and complete Project so that all potential impacts under CEQA can be analyzed. Where revisions to the Project are required to reach a project that the City can support and potentially approve, those revisions must be made prior to circulation. Project design, access, frontage improvements, emergency access, and multi-modal considerations must be resolved and sufficiently analyzed.

3. Principle Three: A documented factual basis before circulation. The MND's proposed no-significanteffect conclusions require a documented factual basis before public circulation. The City must have substantial evidence supporting its analysis and must determine that the whole record contains no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect in order to allow the CEQA analysis under an MND.. The 2019 transportation analysis contains specific unresolved limitations concerning signal inputs, study area, trip assignment, near-term and horizon assumptions, cumulative methodology, and reconciliation with more recent information.

Denial of the appeal would not halt the CEQA process or deny the Project. It would not require the Applicant to accept one particular frontage design, nor would it finally resolve any dispute over the legality or proportionality of a future condition of approval.

Denial would affirm the City’s determination that the current document is not ready to be released as the City’s proposed MND. The Applicant may resolve the Project configuration, verify or update the supporting analyses, and resubmit a revised MND. If a revised document is circulated, the City would then consider public and agency comments and any new information and take whatever additional steps are required by CEQA. Principal legal and technical references informing this analysis are included in Appendix B.

Organization of this analysis

1. Analytical Method

2. Project Scope, Existing Setting, and Review History

3. The City's Responsibility Before Circulating the MND

4. Project Access and Emergency Access

5. Site-Specific Frontage Treatment

6. Adequacy of the Transportation and Environmental Technical Record

7. Conclusions and Recommended Action
Appendix A: Consolidated Processing Chronology
Appendix B: Principal Authorities and Technical References Appendix C: Exaction Analysis of Right-of-Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements Appendix D: Vicinity Map
Appendix E: Appeal Letter dated July 10, 2026
Appendix F: Supplemental Appeal Letter dated July 31, 2026 Appendix G: VMT Letter dated April 10, 2025
812
3 1. Analytical Method
Each section of this analysis first identifies the governing requirements and record facts, then explains their effect on environmental readiness, and finally cross-references the appeal contentions addressed by the discussion.

This analysis describes some of the key issues that must be resolved, including the Project-description, access/emergency-access, frontage-configuration, and transportation-record deficiencies. These issues are related, but each is independently material. Resolution of one issue does not automatically cure the others.

This analysis does not presume that any unresolved issue will necessarily produce a significant environmental effect.

Its conclusion is narrower: the present record is not sufficiently resolved and reliable for the City to make and circulate the proposed MND conclusions.

1.1 Appeal Contention and Response Crosswalk
Contentions of the appeal and a summary of City responses are provided in Table 1.1 below.

Table 1: Appeal Contention Crosswalk
Appeal point City response Section Page
The MND is complete
because it has undergone
extensive review.

Processing history does not substitute for present
legal and factual adequacy. Application
completeness and CEQA-information sufficiency
are distinct; Guidelines section 15060(a)
preserves the City's authority.

Section

3.5 12
The City must circulate the
unaltered MND.

The City has no obligation to circulate to the public
an MND that is, in the City’s independent judgment
as the lead agency under CEQA, incomplete and
inadequate.

Section

3.5 12
The disputed items do not
need to be resolved in order
for the MND to be circulated.

Material Project-description, mitigation, and
technical-analysis questions must be resolved
sufficiently for the City to present the document as
its proposed environmental analysis.

Section

3.5 12
City standards permit the
Mission Road driveway.

The criteria allow site-specific review; they do not
establish that this location and configuration are
acceptable without analysis or treatment.

Section

4.6 15
Mission 316 is controlling
precedent.

Mission 316 involved different access rights,
physical conditions, and environmental review and
therefore does not decide Lanikai.

Section

4.6 15
The Fire Code requires a
general-use Mission Road
driveway.

A Project-specific Fire determination is required; a
gated emergency-only connection or other
approved configuration may be possible.

Section

4.6 15
Low driveway volumes
eliminate access concerns.

Volume is relevant but does not resolve locationspecific geometry, conflict points, bus, bicycle, pedestrian, or emergency-access issues.

Section

4.6 15
813
4 Appeal point City response Section Page
The curb treatment is
unprecedented or
inconsistent with FHWA
guidance.

The City's concept is broader than a conventional
parking-lane bulb-out; its proper form require sitespecific engineering, not an identical precedent.

Section

5.6 19
The City is making Lanikai
repair a pre-existing
deficiency.

The existing condition is acknowledged, but the
Project adds a driveway and has effects on City
infrastructure.

Section

5.6 19
Signal timing, push buttons,
striping, and delineation fully
resolve the issue.

Those measures may address discrete
operational questions but do not by themselves
resolve crossing length, visibility, driveway
conflicts, bus and bicycle operations, frontage
standards, or Fire access.

Section

5.6 19
Pedestrian, bicycle, transit,
and senior-resident factors
are outside CEQA.

Project-generated movement and physical
transportation interactions are proper subjects of
the Initial Study.

Section

5.6 19
The frontage exaction could
be challenged under CEQA.

The legality and cost allocation of a future
condition are separate from the duty to analyze the
physical Project the City may support.

Section

5.6 19
CEQA Guidelines section
15125 prevents the City
from requiring updates to
the 2019 transportation
analysis.

CEQA does not impose an inflexible baseline rule;
the City may require verification where specific
evidence shows an input may not be
representative.

Section

6.9 22
The existing LOS analysis
contains all necessary
information.

The LTA is incomplete or unresolved with respect
to key inputs, including but not limited to the study
area, signal inputs, near-term and horizon
assumptions, cumulative method, and trip
distribution.

Section

6.9 22
Woodward 46 proves no
Lanikai impact.

Woodward 46 is a different Project with different
access and movement characteristics. Its
conclusion cannot be assigned to Lanikai. Its more
recent operating information instead
demonstrates why Lanikai’s model and Projectspecific incremental effect require verification Section

6.9 23
Low trip generation resolves
traffic and safety.

Total volume does not answer movement- and
location-specific access, geometry, or emergencyaccess questions. It also do not resolve the effect of redistributing traffic to Woodward Street if the
Mission Road driveway changes.

Section

6.9 23
Remaining transportation
work can occur after
circulation.

The City may defer normal final-engineering
details, but not the Project configuration, traffic
assignment, and technical analysis necessary to
support the MND’s proposed environmental
findings.

Section

6.9 23
814
5 2. Project Scope, Existing Setting, and Review History

2.1 Project location and development proposal
The Project site is an approximately 3.96-acre vacant parcel at the northwest corner of East Mission Road and Woodward Street (APN 220-063-04-00). The Applicant proposes 115 age-restricted senior apartment units in a fourstory building of approximately 106,300 square feet and approximately 50 feet in height, with 135 parking spaces. The requested entitlements include an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, and a Multifamily Site Development Plan. A vicinity map is included in Appendix D.

2.2 Existing transportation setting
Mission Road is an arterial roadway. Along the Project frontage, the existing westbound roadway includes a lanetransition or merge condition and a bus stop. Bicycle facilities exist east and west of the site, with a gap along much of the Project frontage. The proposed site plan includes one driveway on Woodward Street and a second driveway on Mission Road, less than 400 feet west of the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection. Figure 2.5 approximately depicts the proposed driveway locations.

The proposed Mission Road driveway is proposed in the same limited area as right-turning motorists from Woodward Street, westbound bicycle movements, bus arrival and departure, pedestrians using the intersection and transit stop, and the existing lane transition. A part of the environmental-readiness question is whether the MND evaluates a physical configuration that can be supported by the City and that addresses those interactions.

2.3 Development-application processing timelines; evolving standards The development application was originally submitted on December 21, 2017. On average, the project has been submitted by the applicant less than once per year for review, as shown below in Table 2.3 below.

Table 2.3 Plan review Turnaround Time by Lanikai Management and City Staff Party Minimum turnaround Maximum turnaround Average turnaround Lanikai Management 303 days 624 days 388 days
City staff 22 days 32 days 28 days
During the first through the eighth plan submittals, City reviews accounted for approximately 8% of the total processing time, while the application was with Lanikai Management 92% of the time, as shown in Figure 2.3 below. 815
6 Figure 2.3: Processing Time Breakdown
A chronology of submittal completeness for the first through eight reviews is summarized in Appendix A. The City determined the development application complete for application-processing purposes on June 3, 2022, during the fifth review, while identifying technical and environmental matters that still required correction or updating.

2.4 Processing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) The MND was first submitted to the City on May 14, 2024 with the seventh review, over six years from the original application submittal. Subsequent MND submittals occurred on May 27, 2025, September 23, 2025, and April 1, 2026.

Administrative Decision ADM2026-5226 was issued on July 2, 2026 and provided to Applicant on July 6, 2026 after continuing lack of resolution over the project description and technical support for the MND. The City Manager’s resolution determined the MND was incomplete and not ready for circulation pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Section 18.04.060(a)(2).

On July 13, 2026, an appeal to Administrative Resolution ADM2026-5226 was filed by David P. Hubbard of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP on behalf of Lanikai Management (Appendix E). The July 31, 2026 supplemental appeal letter (Appendix F) provides the appellant’s detailed basis for the appeal.

Figure 2.4: MND Preparation Timeline
Over the long lapses in Lanikai Management’s processing of the Project, applicable standards have changed. A long review history does not itself establish environmental adequacy. However, the passage of time does not compel the 816
7 City to use technical assumptions that are no longer representative. Because the development application and the MND have been processed slowly since 2017, the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, standards, and policies have changed; roadway operations, signal timing, surrounding development, applicable guidance have shifted; and CEQA law has evolved. A record-based verification of whether each material input remains reliable for the conclusions now proposed is key to an adequate MND.

Contrary to the implications of the appeal, the length of the overall application process does not itself determine whether the MND is ready for circulation. The relevant question is whether the current document accurately describes the Project and contains a sufficient factual basis for the environmental conclusions the City would present to the public. Similarly, CEQA Guidelines section 15060(a) preserves the lead agency’s authority to require information necessary for environmental evaluation after an application-completeness determination.

2.5 Evolution of the access and frontage concepts
The design history is important because it demonstrates that the present issue did not originate as a late effort to repair an unrelated City condition; it developed from review of the specific effects of the Project, including the proposed Mission driveway and its interaction with the frontage. This design history also illustrates the City’s good-faith attempt to negotiate with the Applicant to minimize any impacts to the project, reduce costs of the frontage improvements, and still meet reduced City requirements for the Project frontage.

Staff identified the interaction between the proposed Mission Road driveway and the westbound lane-transition condition during early improvement-plan review. On the first plan check, on 1/11/2018, staff commented, “Proposed driveway on Mission Road: the existing lane end condition of westbound Mission Road conflicts with the proposed driveway location…” The comment goes on to describe conceptual improvements for widening, bicycle facilities, and other frontage work.

Staff initially evaluated a broader ultimate-frontage concept and later developed a reduced concept in response to the Applicant's request to limit right-of-way dedication and frontage construction. The initial concept is compared to the current, reduced frontage concept in Table 2.5 below. The City’s current improvement concept is illustrated in Figure

2.5 below.

Table 2.5: Improvement Concept Comparison
Earlier concept Current, Reduced Concept
Mission Road: approximately 14 feet of rightof-way dedication; ultimate pedestrian and bicycle facilities; landscape parkway; curbline
treatment; minor utility and signal work.

Mission Road: dedication reduced to
approximately 4 feet or less; utilities protected
in place; ultimate frontage facilities omitted in
favor of less impactful interim facilities; limited
widening or curbline work for the bus/merge
area; enhanced striping; signal work reduced
to one pole.

Woodward Street: approximately 16 feet of
dedication and ultimate pedestrian, bicycle,
and landscape improvements.

Woodward Street: dedication and ultimate
frontage improvements omitted from the
reduced concept.

Broader implementation of adopted street
cross-sections and multimodal frontage
objectives reflected in Mobility Element.

Project-specific treatment focused on the
driveway, lane transition, bus stop, crossing,
and immediate operating conflicts.

Figure 2.5: Current Improvement Concept
817
8 Although the City’s improvement requirements have been communicated to the Applicant for years, these negotiations have ultimately been unsuccessful. The Applicant currently desires to be allowed to construct the Mission Road access without constructing the accompanying improvements required by the City. Though the Project will affect City infrastructure, Lanikai Management has expressed that it does not desire to construct any frontage improvements to meet City standards. Lanikai has instead proposed only quick-build solutions that meet neither City standards nor goals and suggested that the interim and the ultimate improvements should be constructed by the City.

The Applicant cannot establish MND readiness merely by rejecting the current frontage improvement concept. If this concept is not accepted, the Project still needs a different supported configuration, and the MND must analyze that configuration and its physical effects.

2.6 Unresolved Project elements
Unresolved project elements continue to affect the Project’s ability to compile a complete and correct analysis in the MND. These include:
 Whether the Mission Road connection will operate as a general-use driveway, emergency-only access, or be removed or relocated.
 What Project-specific curbline, bus-stop, bicycle, pedestrian, striping, signal, or other frontage treatment meeting City requirements will be proposed.
 How Project trips will be distributed between Mission Road and Woodward Street under the supported access design; if the Mission Road connection is not a general-use driveway, those trips will need to be redistributed to Woodward Street.
 What Fire Department determination and physical emergency-access configuration apply to the Citysupported design.  Confirmation of whether the LTA's baseline inputs, signal timing, study area, near-term and horizon assumptions, cumulative methodology, and trip assignment provide a reliable factual basis.  Whether changes to access and frontage require conforming analysis in drainage, grading, utilities, construction noise or air quality, public services, or other MND sections.  Whether the MND can ultimately substantially support a finding of “no significant impact”. 818
9 2.7 Limited effect of denying the appeal
The Applicant has appealed the City Manager’s determination in AMD2026-5226 that the MND is inadequate to be circulated due to the unresolved elements above. City Council will consider the appeal on September 8, 2026.

Denial of the appeal would affirm the City's determination that the current MND is not ready for release. It would not halt CEQA review, deny the Project, require one final frontage design, or be a determination on the exaction dispute.

The Applicant may resolve the Project configuration, verify or update the technical analyses, and submit a revised MND. The City would then retain its full duty to consider comments and new information and, as the record warrants, revise mitigation, recirculate, or prepare an EIR before final action.

3. The City's Responsibility Before Circulating the MND Three core principles govern whether the current MND is ready for public circulation. They are related but independently necessary; a failure under any one principle is sufficient to prevent the City from supporting the present MND for circulation.

3.1 Principle One: City’s Independent judgment and local authority Public Resources Code section 21082.1(c) requires the lead agency to independently review and analyze a CEQA document, circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment, and make an independent-judgment finding when adopting an MND.

The Applicant may prepare studies and propose text. However, the proposed MND is the City's document for CEQA purposes.

Public review is an essential CEQA step, but it does not replace this pre-circulation responsibility. The City cannot knowingly circulate an MND whose Project description or supporting factual record it cannot yet support and rely on public comments to correct material deficiencies later. The City must first be able to present the proposed MND as its own environmental analysis.

Independent judgment means the City must critically evaluate the work, resolve material conflicts, and be able to explain why the Project description, assumptions, and conclusions are supportable. Here, the Planning Director, City Engineer, City Manager, and reviewing staff have determined that the current document does not yet meet that threshold.

The City's local code reinforces that responsibility. San Marcos Municipal Code section 18.04.060(a)(2) allows the City Manager to make administrative CEQA determinations; subsection (a)(4) authorizes the City Manager to require data and information the City deems necessary and preserves the City's ultimate responsibility for environmentaldocument content. Section 18.04.100 requires City review of the initial study and requested information and directs that revisions or redesign supporting a no-significant-impact determination occur before public notice.

The December 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed by the Applicant and its CEQA consultants also confirms the City's final authority to determine what must be included for a defensible, transparent, and complete environmental document.
819
10 3.2 Principle Two: Analyze a coherent, stable, sufficiently resolved, and complete Project

3.2.1 Accurate, stable, and whole Project description.

CEQA requires an environmental document to describe the Project with sufficient accuracy and stability that the environmental effects may be appropriately analyzed. CEQA Guidelines sections 15063(d)(1) and 15071(a) require the Initial Study and proposed negative declaration to describe the Project. CEQA Guidelines sections 15124(c) and 15378 require consideration of the Project’s technical characteristics and the whole of the action that may cause direct or reasonably foreseeable physical environmental changes. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 explains the importance of an accurate, stable, and finite Project description.

The MND need not contain final construction drawings for every improvement. It must, however, identify the physical Project with enough specificity to determine its potential effects and to establish the basis for any proposed less-thansignificant findings. Material questions concerning driveway operates for general traffic, where Project trips enter the network, what emergency access is required, what frontage treatment accompanies the access, and whether the transportation model reflects the supported configuration and representative operations determine what physical project is being analyzed. Those questions must be resolved sufficiently to support the proposed MND conclusions before circulation.

The Project description needs to identify the principal physical characteristics and integral improvements with sufficient stability that the public and decision makers are evaluating the same actions the Project proposes. A description that assumes two unrestricted driveways while emergency access, frontage design, and trip distribution remain unresolved does not supply that stable analytical description.

The whole action to be contemplated under CEQA includes physical frontage work that is part of the supported Project, whether that work is labeled a Project feature, required improvement, or mitigation. If the selected access design moves a curb, constructs a bus bay, changes a bicycle facility, relocates signal equipment, modifies drainage, or changes grading or utilities, those physical components and their reasonably foreseeable consequences must be reflected in the MND at an appropriate level of detail.

CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 may require recirculation when substantial revisions identify a new avoidable effect or show that proposed mitigation will not reduce effects below significance. Circulating to the public before defining and analyzing a project therefore does not eliminate work. However, it may deprive the public of a meaningful review and create an avoidable recirculation requirement if the Project configuration or technical analysis later changes materially.

3.2.2 Required or agreed Project revisions precede circulation.

An MND is appropriate when the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions made by or agreed to by the applicant before release for public review would avoid or mitigate those effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur, and no substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project as revised may have a significant effect. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines, § 15070(b).)
CEQA Guidelines section 15071 requires the circulated document to include the proposed finding that the Project will not have a significant environmental effect, the Initial Study supporting that finding, and any mitigation incorporated into the Project. Accordingly, the Project configuration and revisions upon which the MND relies must be sufficiently established before circulation.

These provisions require more than a list of improvements that might later be selected. The City must know the physical Project on which the proposed environmental conclusions rest and whether any revisions or mitigation needed to support those conclusions are part of, or agreed to for, that Project before public review. 820
11 3.2.3 Consistency with applicable plans, policies, and engineering requirements.

CEQA Guidelines section 15063(d)(5) directs an initial study to examine whether a project is consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land-use controls. Appendix G also asks whether a project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

These provisions do not make every policy inconsistency a significant CEQA impact, and Appendix G is a screening framework rather than an automatic threshold. Those documents do not, by themselves, make a particular curbline concept mandatory under CEQA. However, they inform the City's land-use and engineering review independently of CEQA, and they provide the policy context against which the MND's transportation circulation-system and consistency conclusions must be evaluated.

The City has reviewed the April 2026 MND and determined that it cannot presently make these determinations. The unresolved Project configuration and transportation-analysis issues described in Sections 3 through 6 prevent the City from finding that the current MND accurately analyzes the whole Project and contains the factual basis needed to support its conclusions.

3.2.4 An approvable project.

The Project described in the MND must be a plausible, sufficiently defined proposal that the City can support as the subject of its environmental analysis and that is capable of consideration for approval under applicable City requirements. The City cannot issue proposed no-significant-effect conclusions about a design that remains materially disputed or incomplete.

Unresolved choices are physically different Projects for analytical purposes. They may change where trips enter the network, how pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, buses, and vehicles interact along Mission Road, what frontage construction occurs, and whether grading, drainage, utilities, construction activity, noise, air quality, or public-service analyses must change.

The Project may change in response to review, and the City retains discretion over the requested entitlements. But the City cannot circulate a proposed MND based on a physical design it cannot support under applicable standards while assuming that the disagreement will be resolved later.

3.3 Principle Three: A documented factual basis before circulation.

Public Resources Code section 21080(c) permits a negative declaration when there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect.

Section 21080(e) defines substantial evidence as facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts, and excludes speculation and unsubstantiated opinion. CEQA Guidelines sections 15063(d)(3), 15064(f), and 15071(e) require the Initial Study and proposed negative declaration to document the factual basis and reasons supporting the proposed determination.

Accordingly, before circulation, the City must have substantial evidence sufficient to support its analysis, enough reliable information to evaluate whether the record supports a fair argument of a significant effect, and a documented explanation for the proposed conclusion, including appropriate technical studies.

Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 328 confirms that CEQA does not impose one inflexible baseline method and that the lead agency has discretion to determine how existing conditions can most realistically be measured, subject to substantial-evidence review.

3.4 Readiness matrix
The table below presents an overview of the legal framework and whether each requirement is demonstrated by the current MND.
821
12 Requirement Principal authority Demonstrated? Current assessment Independent lead-agency
judgment before
circulation
PRC § 21082.1(c);
SMMC §§ 18.04.060,

18.04.100
NO Not demonstrated. Responsible City reviewers do
not support the current Project description and
technical basis.

Project and agreed
revisions capable of
supporting an MND
PRC §§ 21064.5,
21080(c)(2);
Guidelines § 15070(b)
NO Not demonstrated. Access, frontage, fire access,
and related revisions remain unresolved or
disputed.

Accurate description of
the whole physical action
Guidelines §§
15063(d)(1), 15071(a),
15378; County of Inyo
NO Not demonstrated. The MND does not yet
evaluate one supported access/frontage
configuration and all related work.

Documented factual
basis and no fair
argument of significant
effect
PRC § 21080(c)-(e);
Guidelines §§
15063(d)(3), 15064(f),
15071(e)
NO Not demonstrated. Material LTA inputs, study
area, trip assignment, and model reconciliation
remain unresolved.

Reasoned consideration
of applicable plans and
circulation policies
Guidelines §
15063(d)(5); Appendix
G
NO Not demonstrated. Conclusions depend on
disputed design and incomplete transportation
support.

Material analysis
completed before public
review
Guidelines §§ 15070,
15071, 15073.5;
Sundstrom
NO Not demonstrated. Remaining work includes
significance-related inquiry, not only final
engineering.

3.5 Appeal contentions addressed by the three-principle framework The analysis above addresses the following appeal contentions in light of Principles 1-3 detailed at the beginning of this document.
• The MND is complete because it has undergone extensive review. Processing history does not substitute for present legal and factual adequacy. Application completeness and CEQA-information sufficiency are distinct; Guidelines section 15060(a) preserves the City's authority. • The City must circulate the unaltered MND. The City cannot circulate to the public an MND that is, in the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency under CEQA, incomplete and inadequate. • The disputed items do not need to be resolved in order for the MND to be circulated. Material Projectdescription, mitigation, and technical-analysis questions must be resolved sufficiently for the City to present the document as its proposed environmental analysis.

4. Project Access and Emergency Access

4.1 Governing access and emergency access requirements
San Marcos Municipal Code section 17.40.060(a) requires streets to be constructed and improved in accordance with the General Plan circulation framework, Master Street Plan, City street design criteria, standard plans, and specifications. The City’s Street Design Criteria, which predate the Lanikai application, restrict new driveway access on a prime or secondary arterial when access is available at another location and contemplate such arterial access only when necessary.

These provisions do not categorically prohibit every driveway on Mission Road. They provide the basis for site-specific review of whether the proposed driveway is necessary and, if retained, what design is needed to address its effects.

Because the Project also proposes access from Woodward Street, the Mission Road driveway is not automatically permitted without that review.
822
13 Fire apparatus access must separately comply with the adopted Fire Code and be supported via a Project-specific determination by the Fire Department.

The Project plans, Project description, transportation analysis, frontage design, and Fire determination must be complete, consistent, describe the project as a whole, and be supported by factual information.

4.2 Mission Road setting
The Project site is located at the northwest corner of Mission Road and Woodward Street. Mission Road is an arterial roadway. Along the Project frontage, the existing roadway environment includes a westbound merge condition, an existing bus stop, and bicycle facilities to the east and west with a gap along the Project frontage. The Project proposes general use driveways on Woodward Street and on Mission Road, less than 400 feet from the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection.

The proposed Mission Road driveway would be located on an arterial near the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection, within the existing westbound lane-transition and bus-stop area and along a bicycle-route gap or transition. The City's concern is not simply that the driveway is proposed or that Mission Road is an arterial. It is the interaction between the Project's new access and the specific physical and operational setting. From the City’s perspective, an exception to allow the Mission Road access may be considered only if the City can support the access need, geometry, operations, and accompanying treatment at this location.

4.3 Project Effects
Lanikai would add new residents, visitors, deliveries, service vehicles, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The relevant analysis is whether the Project introduces or exacerbates physical conflicts to the existing condition and what design is needed to accommodate the added activity consistent with City requirements.

The proposed driveway would introduce new turning and crossing interactions in an already complex roadway setting.

Those interactions include:
 Right turns from Woodward Street onto Mission Road;
 Vehicles entering and leaving the proposed driveway;
 Westbound bicycle travel;
 Pedestrian and transit-user movements;
 Buses entering and leaving the adjacent stop;
 Visibility and merging conditions; and
 Driver expectancy and the presence of slower vehicles entering or leaving an arterial roadway.

Even a comparatively low-volume driveway may create a site-specific geometric or operational concern when located near an intersection transition, merge condition, bus stop, bicycle route, and pedestrian crossing. CEQA Appendix G addresses hazards associated with geometric design features or incompatible uses, conflicts with policies governing roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and inadequate emergency access. The MND must provide a supported factual analysis of those issues.

4.4 Emergency Access and Fire Requirements
The appeal argues that Fire Code requirements make a second access mandatory and therefore require the Mission Road driveway.

However, the applicable Fire requirements must be established through a Project-specific Fire Department determination. The Applicant should coordinate with the Fire Department to meet Fire access requirements. Solutions that could be reviewed by Fire could include, but are not limited to, reducing the unit count of the development, constructing a second driveway at a different location, or proposing an emergency-only access on Mission Road, outfitted with a gate to prevent use by the general public.

The April 2026 MND states that the Fire Marshal reviewed a Project with two driveways and did not identify an emergency-vehicle circulation issue with that configuration. That statement does not establish that the Mission Road 823
14 driveway must operate as a general-use access. Nor does it establish that the same emergency-access conclusion would apply if the access configuration changes.

4.4 Driveway Precedent
The Appellant points to Mission 316 East and West as precedent for Mission Road access. However, circumstances there are materially different.

Mission 316 East was compliant with the Urban Streets Design Criteria in that its only legal access was to Mission Road. When Mission 316 West was later developed, its EIR evaluated the already existing Mission Road driveway as a potential shared access, and the project also added secondary access on Woodward Street. The sight-distance and physical conditions considered for that development were also site-specific.

A prior approval can inform consistent treatment, but it does not eliminate the need to evaluate Lanikai's location.

Lanikai proposes a new driveway downstream of a signalized intersection in the merge/bus-stop area and has another proposed access.

4.5 A supported Project configuration is needed
The current MND assumes two general-use driveways but does not incorporate a Mission Road frontage design accepted by the City. Staff have developed a raised curb extension concept that would reconfigure the frontage and reduce conflicts. The concept is a localized treatment that would include shifting the curb line to reconfigure the existing merge, establishment of a bus bay, reduction of pedestrian crossing distance, improved visibility, accommodation of bicycle travel, and revised signal-related improvements. Several other physical configurations remain possible:

1. Retain the general-use Mission Road driveway with the current curbline/frontage concept or another technically supported, City-accepted treatment.

2. Remove the general-use Mission Road driveway and reassign all or most Project traffic to Woodward Street.

3. Retain a gated Mission Road connection for emergency access only, if accepted by Fire and supported by the site plan.

4. Develop a different access configuration that satisfies Fire, engineering, and land-use requirements.

Each option changes the physical and analytical Project. Removal of the Mission Road driveway would alter Project trip distribution and turning movements and could affect the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection. Retention of the driveway would require analysis of the driveway’s geometric, multimodal, transit, and operational interactions and the physical frontage treatment relied upon to address them. A changed configuration may also affect emergency access, the site plan, grading, drainage, utilities, construction limits, noise, air quality, and other portions of the MND.

Importantly, emergency access effects associated with the change must be resolved, which could include meeting Fire requirements in a number of ways such as proposing a new general use or emergency-only access point.

Determining the ultimate fire access requirements will require project-specific parameters to be discussed with staff, agreed to, and evaluated prior to public release of the MND. If a project-specific Fire determination requires two separated access roads, the MND should analyze the physical access configuration that satisfies that requirement. If one approved fire apparatus access road is sufficient under an applicable exception or other approved configuration, the MND should analyze that supported design instead.

The MND need not analyze every conceivable alternative as if it were an EIR. It must analyze the Project the Applicant proposes and the City can support, together with any revisions or mitigation needed for the MND's conclusions.

Changes to access could affect the project description, trip distribution and transportation analysis, emergency circulation, roadway improvements, the site plan, and potentially other technical sections. Staff does not presume that these changes would necessarily cause a significant environmental effect. The purpose of resolving the design is to determine whether the technical conclusions in the MND remain valid for the Project that may actually be approved.
824
15 4.6 Appeal contentions addressed by the access analysis The analysis above addresses the following appeal contentions. • City standards permit the Mission Road driveway. The criteria allow site-specific review; they do not establish that this location and configuration are acceptable without analysis or treatment. • Mission 316 is controlling precedent. Mission 316 involved different access rights, physical conditions, and environmental review and therefore does not decide Lanikai. • The Fire Code requires a general-use Mission Road driveway. A Project-specific Fire determination is required; a gated emergency-only connection or other approved configuration may be possible. • Low driveway volumes eliminate access concerns. Volume does not resolve location-specific geometry, conflict points, bus, bicycle, pedestrian, or emergency-access issues.

5. Site-Specific Frontage Treatment

5.1 Governing framework
CEQA Guidelines section 15063(d)(5) directs an initial study to examine whether a project is consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land-use controls and requires a reasoned, factually supported evaluation of policies that bear on physical environmental effects.

The relevant local framework includes Proposition R, the City's Code, street and access criteria such as the Urban Street Design Criteria, General Plan Mobility Element Goal M-1 and Policies M-1.1 through M-1.7, and the Active Transportation Plan.

San Marcos voters approved Proposition R in 1988, requiring adequate infrastructure and services for new development. Proposition R, codified in SMMC Chapter 20.315, requires all new development to bear the cost of providing public facilities, and services needed to manage the new development and to mitigate the impacts created by that new development.

For instance, Mobility Element Policy M-1.1 directs the City to “safely and efficiently accommodate traffic generated by development”.

Policy M-1.2 directs the City to require new development to finance and construct internal adjacent roadway circulation and City-wide improvements as necessary to mitigate project impacts, including roadway, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Other Mobility Element policies direct that the City should work with new development to provide connectivity and redundancy in the mobility network; to proactively improve the quality, safety, and environmental performance of roadways; and to provide complete streets with safety, comfort, and connectivity for all modes.

San Marcos Municipal Code section 17.40.060(a) requires streets to be constructed and improved in accordance with the General Plan circulation framework, Master Street Plan, City street design criteria, standard plans, and specifications.

The Active Transportation Plan identifies ultimate bicycle and pedestrian networks and guides development-related frontage implementation.
825
16 Among other things, those policies support multimodal, safety, connectivity, and development-responsibility objectives and provide a non-CEQA basis for requiring an acceptable frontage solution. The MND must then analyze the physical solution actually included in the supported Project.

At the same time, Public Resources Code section 21080(g) preserves an applicant’s ability to challenge the legality of a condition of approval separately from the environmental-review process. A dispute over who may ultimately be required to construct or fund an improvement does not eliminate the need to identify and analyze the physical Project.

5.2 Requirements for improvements
The City’s adopted Development Impact Fee Nexus Study indicates that, “the need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development…” The Project generates, among other effects, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular trips and transit effects to citywide infrastructure, including to Mission Road and Woodward Street. The City finds no evidence to support Lanikai Management’s claims that the age 55+ residents will “recreate onsite” and will not use pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Accordingly, residents are expected to use City facilities and therefore to increase pedestrian and bicycle demand.

In its Exaction Analysis of Right-of-Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements (Appendix C), City staff found that Lanikai will contribute approximately 1,160,000 annual vehicle miles traveled to City roadways and the need for approximately 3,395 linear feet each of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

In addition, the proposed driveways introduce specific issues that must be addressed. The exact frontage treatment can evolve so long as it addresses Project effects, is consistent with City documents and standards, and is supported by the City. If the supported Project will include a curbline change, bus bay, bicycle transition, signal work, drainage modification, or other frontage construction, that work is part of the physical action to be described and analyzed.

The City may require frontage improvements independently of CEQA in conformance with its code, plans, and standards. Those documents do not, by themselves, make the exact current curbline concept mandatory as a CEQA mitigation measure. Their significance is twofold: they inform the City's land-use and engineering review independently of CEQA, and they provide the policy context against which the MND's transportation circulation-system and consistency conclusions must be evaluated. CEQA's separate role is informational: to evaluate the physical Project, including improvements that form part of it, and to determine whether Project revisions or mitigation are needed.

5.3 Site-specific frontage treatment and alternatives
Staff identified the relationship between the proposed driveway and the existing lane-end condition during the initial improvement-plan review in 2018. The City initially considered a broader frontage concept involving additional rightof-way, roadway widening, ultimate pedestrian and bicycle improvements, utility relocation, and signal relocation. After the Applicant objected to the burden of that approach, staff developed a reduced concept intended to address the Project-specific concerns with less impact to the Project. The developer did not provide frontage improvement designs for City review and comment on between 2019 and 2023. The installation of a curb extension has been proposed by the City in its plan review comments since 2023.

The City Engineer's March 5, 2024 email to the Lanikai consultant described a context-specific concept involving localized reallocation of right-of-way, moving the curb line south, removing or reconfiguring the substandard merge, establishing a bus bay, reducing pedestrian crossing distance, improving pedestrian visibility and signal operations ahead of the proposed driveway, and providing a treatment with a reasonable nexus to the proposed development. It is illustrated in Figure 2.5, repeated here for ease of reference. 826
17 Figure 2.5: Current Improvement Concept
The existing westbound Mission Road merge condition predates the Project. That fact does not eliminate the need to analyze how the Project’s new driveway and Project-generated vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity would interact with the City network.

The Applicant argues that the raised curb extension lacks precedent and is inconsistent with Caltrans and/or Federal Highway Administration guidance for conventional curb extensions on higher-speed roadways without on-street parking. The City’s concept is not the same as a conventional parking-lane bulb-out. It is a broader, location-specific curbline and access treatment intended to address the interaction of the new driveway with the merge condition, bus stop, intersection, bicycle travel, and pedestrian crossing. An identical treatment at another City location is not required before the City may address a site-specific design issue.

NACTO uses 'curb extension' as an umbrella term covering several applications, including bus bulbs and other segmented treatments, and identifies potential benefits such as shorter crossings, improved visibility, tighter turning radii, and operational improvements. Such geometric treatments can address multiple functions and should be evaluated based on context. The raised curb extension may reduce pedestrian exposure distance, improve visibility, affect turning geometry, improve accessibility and curb-ramp placement, and provide other operational benefits..

According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Handbook and NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide, curb extensions can reduce crossing distances, lessening the amount of additional green time that is needed for pedestrian clearance, improving intersection efficiency, and enhancing pedestrian safety (ITE, 2010; NACTO, 2013). Those potential benefits, as well as any effects on vehicle, bicycle, and transit operations, should be supported by the final engineering analysis.

Other alternatives may be supportable. If competent technical analysis demonstrates that an alternative adequately addresses the identified effects, meets the City’s plans and requirements, and the City accepts and incorporates it into the Project, the MND may analyze that design. The mere existence of an asserted alternative does not demonstrate that the current Project design adequately addresses the identified concerns.

5.4 Pedestrian Considerations
The Project is adjacent to a bus stop and near the Civic Center SPRINTER station, public library, restaurants, and other destinations. Project-generated vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit movements may interact with the 827
18 proposed Mission Road driveway, turning traffic, the merge condition, bicycle facilities, bus operations, and the Mission Road/Woodward Street crossing. These are proper subjects of the Initial Study where they bear on circulationsystem policies, geometric hazards, or emergency access.

The Project’s age restriction does not in itself create an environmental impact or the need for improvements. It is relevant only where supported evidence connects the characteristics of anticipated residents to the physical design or operation being analyzed, such as the appropriate pedestrian walking-speed assumptions or assumptions regarding the likely use of nearby transit and community destinations.

For instance, the California MUTCD 2026, section 4I.06, uses 3.5 feet per second as the general pedestrian-clearance speed, directs consideration of a slower speed where slower pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk, and specifically states that 2.8 feet per second should be considered where older or disabled pedestrians routinely use it (CA MUTCD section 4I.06).

The Applicant’s traffic engineer has proposed a longer pedestrian-clearance interval and estimates that a slower crossing-speed assumption would add approximately 8 to 11 seconds when the pedestrian push button across Mission Road is activated. The engineer describes the estimate as planning-level and subject to confirmation with City traffic engineering staff and the coordinated signal plan. This additional time may impact vehicular traffic on Mission Road.

The Applicant’s proposed striping, delineation, and signal-timing measures may be evaluated as alternatives. Signal timing, however, addresses only one component of the physical setting. It does not shorten the crossing, eliminate vehicle conflict points, improve pedestrian-motorist visibility, address the driveway and merge interaction, resolve bicycle and bus-stop operations, or determine emergency access.

The Applicant may propose other treatments as an alternative to raised curb construction. Competent analysis must show that the alternative addresses the driveway, merge, bus, bicycle, pedestrian, and visibility issues at this location and complies with applicable standards. The existence of a possible alternative does not make the current MND complete when the alternative has not been fully analyzed, accepted by the City, or incorporated into the Project.

5.5 The exaction issue is separate from MND readiness
The Applicant challenges the right-of-way dedication and frontage work, stating that they lack the essential nexus and rough proportionality required by Dolan, and Ehrlich and therefore cannot lawfully be imposed. Constitutional limits on development conditions remain fully applicable.

The City prepared a Project-specific Exaction Analysis of Right-of-Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements (Appendix C) in August 2025. The analysis calculates the proportionality of the Project burden on citywide infrastructure to the burden placed on the developer, including pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway improvements and neglecting appurtenant work like grading and drainage structures for both scenarios. The analysis found that the Project will create approximately $3,194,213 in Project burden on the City’s facilities, which provides sufficient nexus to require the right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements.

The 2025 Exaction Analysis was based upon the ultimate right-of-way dedication and burden of ultimate improvements, as discussed in Table 2.5 above. For those ultimate improvements, the value of the right-of-way to be dedicated was calculated at approximately $369,450 while the high-level improvement burden was calculated at $138,476, together totaling $507,926. The area of right-of-way to be dedicated for the ultimate scenario was approximately 15,000 square feet, representing less than 10% of the gross property area of 174,676 square feet.

The Exaction Analysis did not contemplate the significantly reduced scope of the interim improvements and much less significant right-of-way dedication the City has since offered to Lanikai Management. (Table 2.5 above). The burden to the developer of these interim improvements would be just a fraction of the burden of the ultimate improvements.

However, the environmental-readiness question at hand is narrower than the exaction issue. If the supported Project includes physical frontage changes, the MND must evaluate them. If the City concludes a disputed element cannot or should not be imposed, the MND must analyze a different supported design. The parties' disagreement over who must fund or construct an improvement does not permit the environmental document to avoid the physical design question. 828
19 Public Resources Code section 21080(g) expressly preserves an applicant's ability to challenge the legality of a condition separately and explains the environmental consequence if a condition necessary to avoid a significant effect is later set aside.

5.6 Appeal contentions addressed by the frontage analysis The analysis above addresses the following appeal contentions. • The curb treatment is unprecedented or inconsistent with FHWA guidance. The City's curb extension concept is broader than a conventional parking-lane bulb-out; its proper form and label require site-specific engineering, not an identical precedent.
• The City is making Lanikai repair a pre-existing deficiency. The existing condition is acknowledged, but the Project adds a driveway and has effects on City infrastructure. • Signal timing, push buttons, striping, and delineation fully resolve the issue. Those measures may address discrete operational questions but do not by themselves resolve crossing length, visibility, driveway conflicts, bus and bicycle operations, frontage standards, or Fire access. • Pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and senior-resident factors are outside CEQA. Project-generated movement and physical transportation interactions are proper subjects of the Initial Study. • An exaction challenge makes the frontage work irrelevant to CEQA. The legality and cost allocation of a future condition are separate from the duty to analyze the physical Project the City may support.

6. Adequacy of the Transportation and Environmental Technical Record

6.1 Governing framework
The April 2026 MND relies on the LTA to support conclusions concerning consistency with the General Plan Mobility Element. The adequacy of the LTA therefore matters to conclusions the MND itself makes.

Mobility Element Policy M-1.1 directs the City to safely and efficiently accommodate traffic generated by development.

Policy M-1.2 addresses development financing and construction of internal, adjacent, and citywide roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements necessary to mitigate Project impacts. Other Mobility Element policies address connectivity, redundancy, roadway safety, environmental performance, and complete streets. CEQA Guidelines section 15063(d)(5) and Appendix G require the Initial Study to examine consistency with applicable plans and policies that bear on environmental effects.

Previously, CEQA required vehicular Levels of Service (LOS) to be analyzed to identify traffic impacts under CEQA.

On July 1, 2020, that metric shifted to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), consistent with the requirements of SB743. The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG) indicate that the City may continue to require congestion-related transportation analysis and improvements through its land-use approval process and to ensure consistency with General Plan transportation policies. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report establishes a Level of Service D or better for Mission Road.

CEQA Guidelines section 15125 describes the baseline principle for describing environmental conditions, while section 15063 requires the Initial Study to identify the environmental setting and to provide a factual basis adequate for the lead agency's conclusions.

6.2 The role of the transportation analysis
The April 2026 MND relies on the LTA to characterize roadway performance, assess the Project’s contribution under the City’s accepted Level of Service framework, and support conclusions concerning consistency with the General Plan Mobility Element.
829
20 The City is not asserting that every inconsistency with a General Plan policy is automatically a significant CEQA impact. The MND must nevertheless provide a factual basis for its conclusion that the Project is consistent with the environmentally relevant Mobility Element policies upon which it relies. Not every policy tension will be a significant effect, but the MND must accurately explain how the supported design and transportation analysis relate to those policies.

The transportation record affects more than a congestion calculation. Its assumptions inform Project access, geometric hazards, emergency access, pedestrian and bicycle interactions, transit operations, and Mobility Element consistency. The supported frontage configuration may also require conforming review of grading, drainage, utilities, signal equipment, construction traffic, construction noise or air quality, and public services, as applicable. The MND need not assume every conforming change is significant. It should identify the physical changes and verify that the affected technical conclusions remain valid.

The combination of estimated signal timing, changed corridor operations, an expired near-term scenario, an unverified horizon and cumulative method, an omitted directly affected segment, and a potentially changed access configuration prevent the City from determining that the LTA presently supplies a reliable factual basis for the MND's transportation, access, emergency-access, and Mobility Element conclusions.

6.3 Analytical Framework
The LTA was prepared in September 2019 using January 2018 traffic counts.

The metric for transportation impact analysis shifted from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicular MiIes Traveled (VMT) in July, 2020. In his April 10, 2025 letter to the City Attorney (Appendix G), David P. Hubbard of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP on behalf of Lanikai Management argued that, based on IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 123-124, a VMT analysis is not required where a project’s Level of Service (LOS) traffic study was undertaken before the effective date for the VMT metric in CEQA guidelines Section 15064.3. For purposes of this Project, the City Attorney agreed that the applicable LOS framework could be used because of the timing of the original analysis.

The City nonetheless needs a complete and internally consistent LOS analysis using a supported Project configuration, study area, traffic assignment, and operational assumptions. The City may also use congestion analysis for General Plan consistency and land-use requirements.

6.4 Transportation baseline and changed conditions
The Project has been processing for entitlement approvals since 2017, submitting on an average once per year, and at times extending over 600 days between submittals. Over this extensive processing time, standards and conditions have changed.

The appeal argues that CEQA Guidelines section 15125 establishes the environmental baseline when analysis begins and does not require technical studies to be continuously updated. However, the baseline principle does not require the City to disregard evidence of changed conditions. As explained in Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, CEQA does not impose a uniform, inflexible baseline rule. The agency has discretion to determine how existing physical conditions can most realistically be measured, provided the determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Analyzed here is the combined effect of specific issues with the LTA. For background, the traffic counts were collected in January 2018, the LTA was prepared in September 2019, and the MND was first submitted in 2024. Among other issues, the following matters require correction or verification:
 Existing-condition counts were collected before COVID-related changes in travel patterns;  Signal phasing and timing were estimated because actual timing sheets were unavailable in 2018 and are available now;
 Subsequent City signal-system upgrades and coordination of the Mission Road corridor;  A cumulative/background methodology that requires clarification or verification; 830
21  Changed development and traffic conditions in the Project area;  A near-term analysis based on 2023, a year that has passed;  A 2035 horizon year rather than the 2050 horizon used in more recent City and regional analyses;  Omission of the Mission Road segment between Pico Avenue and Woodward Street; and  A Project configuration that may change and therefore alter trip assignment, emergency access, and intersection operations.

The Applicant may demonstrate through competent traffic-engineering analysis that particular older inputs remain representative. Where they are not representative, they should be updated. What the City cannot do is disregard the combined effect of these documented issues while relying on the LTA to support the MND’s conclusions.

6.5 Signal timing and current operations
The 2019 LTA states that actual timing sheets were unavailable and that signal phasing and timing were estimated using engineering judgment and geometric measurements. Those estimates underlie the LOS values carried into the MND. The City subsequently upgraded its signal system and coordinated signals along arterial corridors, including Mission Road, in 2024. Current timing sheets are available. Because signal timing materially affects intersection-delay calculations, the LTA should verify the model using supported timing inputs.

This issue is also relevant to the Applicant’s pedestrian-timing proposal. Any longer pedestrian interval should be evaluated within the current coordination plan and with supported Project pedestrian assumptions. The proposal to increase pedestrian clearance time may address pedestrian clearance but could also affect intersection or segment operations in a manner not evaluated in the current LTA.

Signal timing materially affects calculated delay, queueing, pedestrian clearance, and coordination. The LTA should therefore either reanalyze current timing or provide a supported engineering explanation showing why the earlier estimates remain appropriate for the analytical scenario. The same current model should test the Applicant's proposed longer pedestrian interval so that the analysis does not compare incompatible signal plans.

6.6 Near-term, horizon-year, and cumulative conditions
The September 17, 2019 traffic study states that existing-condition traffic volumes were obtained on January 25, 2018.

The LTA correctly states that it must adhere to SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, which provide that “the data used in the TIS [Traffic Impact Study] should generally not be more than two years old”, and that “if recent traffic data is not available, current counts must be made by the project applicant/consultant.” In this case, vehicular volumes and travel patterns changed significantly after COVID, the data still reflects the patterns from over eight years ago, and the project applicant has not provided current counts to the City.

The LTA applied a one-percent annual growth factor for five years to January 2018 counts and designated 2023 as the near-term year. Because the MND was first submitted in 2024 and is being considered in 2026, that scenario no longer provides the forward-looking five-year condition described in the LTA. The MND should explain how that expired scenario represents the relevant near-term condition or select a supported near-term replacement year.

The LTA uses 2035 as its horizon year. Staff requested a horizon year 2050 analysis in 2025, consistent with more recent City and regional planning work. The final analysis should identify the controlling City or regional guideline and explain why the selected horizon is appropriate for this Project since the Project does not rely on the year 2050 as other recent projects do.

Additionally, new developments in the area have been constructed, and other new developments are reasonably anticipated. These include but are not limited to the Kaiser Permanente expansion, North City, Woodward 46, and other projects. CEQA Guidelines section 15063(b)(1) requires the Initial Study to consider whether the Project, individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect. Therefore, the effects of these projects must be considered cumulatively with the effects of the proposed Project to determine potential significant impacts. The MND should clearly identify and support the methodology used to represent approved and reasonably foreseeable development affecting the study area or update that methodology as necessary. The analysis must allow the City and public to 831
22 distinguish existing conditions, background or cumulative traffic, and Project-added traffic based on a transparent record.

6.7 Study area and trip distribution
The LTA omits the Mission Road segment between Pico Avenue and Woodward Street even though the proposed Mission Road driveway is located on that segment and a substantial share of Project traffic is described as using it.

The directly affected segment should be analyzed or the record should contain a supported technical reason for its exclusion.

Trip distribution is foundational: it determines the affected segments, turning movements, intersection increments, and the operating effect of the Project. If the Mission Road connection becomes emergency-only or is removed, general Project trips must be reassigned to Woodward Street and the Mission Road/Woodward Street intersection.

The appeal emphasizes approximately 460 average daily vehicle trips, 23 AM peak-hour trips, 32 PM peak-hour trips, and approximately six to seven outbound peak-hour vehicles using the Mission Road driveway. Those figures are relevant and may show that certain effects are small. They do not determine whether a new driveway creates a geometric conflict at a specific arterial, bus-stop, merge, bicycle, and intersection location.

A supported analysis may ultimately conclude that the Project increment is less than significant and that a limited treatment is sufficient. However, the City cannot reach that conclusion merely by comparing total trips. It must evaluate the movement, location, geometry, and operating conditions that give those trips their effect.

6.8 Comparison with Woodward 46
The appeal argues that Woodward 46 generates more peak-hour trips than Lanikai and nevertheless produced an acceptable Project-specific transportation result. Gross trip totals from a different project do not determine Lanikai's effect. The projects have different access locations, turning movements, trip distribution, geometry, and incremental trip assignments.

Woodward 46 is relevant for a different reason: its more recent analysis reports materially worse base operations at Mission Road/Woodward Street than the older Lanikai analysis. Lanikai, relying on its unapproved 2019 LTA, reports approximately LOS D in its older existing/near-term scenarios, while Woodward 46 reports a 2026 near-term base LOS F in the AM peak and LOS E in the PM peak.

Woodward 46's small incremental effect on this intersection establishes only its own Project effect under its own assumptions. It cannot be transferred to Lanikai. The divergence in base conditions instead supports verification of the Lanikai model and calculation of Lanikai's own increment using the supported Lanikai access design, trip assignment, signal inputs, and applicable LOS criterion.

Staff is not predetermining that Lanikai will exceed the City's LOS criterion or cause a significant transportation effect.

The present record is insufficiently reliable to make that determination. However, the Woodward 46 study corroborates the need for an updated model review.

6.9 Appeal contentions addressed by the technical-record analysis The analysis above addresses the following appeal contentions. • CEQA Guidelines section 15125 prevents the City from requiring updates to the 2019 transportation analysis.

CEQA does not impose an inflexible baseline rule; the City may require verification where specific evidence shows an input may not be representative.
• The existing LOS analysis contains all necessary information. The LTA is incomplete or unresolved with respect to key inputs, including but not limited to the study area, signal inputs, near-term and horizon assumptions, cumulative method, and trip distribution.
832
23 • Woodward 46 proves no Lanikai impact. Woodward 46 is a different Project with different access and movement characteristics. Its conclusion cannot be assigned to Lanikai. Its more recent operating information instead demonstrates why Lanikai’s model and Project-specific incremental effect require verification. • Low trip generation resolves traffic and safety. Total volume does not answer movement- and location-specific access, geometry, or emergency-access questions. They also do not resolve the effect of redistributing traffic to Woodward Street if the Mission Road driveway changes.
• Remaining transportation work can occur after circulation. The City may defer normal final-engineering details, but not the Project configuration, traffic assignment, and technical analysis necessary to support the MND’s proposed environmental findings.

7. Conclusions and Recommended Action
Appeal Question: Can the City, as CEQA lead agency, circulate the current MND as a proposed environmental document that reflects the City's independent judgment and is supported by an accurate Project description and an adequate factual record?

7.1 Independent and interrelated deficiencies
The record supports the City's conclusion on multiple grounds. The Project description is not sufficiently stable because the access, emergency-access, and frontage configuration remain unresolved. The access analysis is not sufficiently supported because the MND assumes a general-use Mission Road driveway without an accepted treatment and without a final Fire access determination without that driveway. The transportation record is not sufficiently reliable because material inputs, study limits, trip distribution, and comparison data remain unresolved.

Each deficiency independently bears on readiness; together they affect the core of the MND's proposed findings.

The City need not show at this stage that the Project necessarily causes a significant effect. The City must determine whether it can support the proposed conclusion that the Project as revised will not cause one and that no substantial evidence supports a fair argument to the contrary. On the current record, the city cannot responsibly make that preliminary determination under guiding Principles one through three of this analysis.

7.2 Path to a circulable document

1. Resolve the general-use and emergency-access configuration through coordinated Planning, Engineering, Traffic, and Fire review.

2. Identify the Project-specific and City-supported frontage treatment associated with that configuration, including its location, principal dimensions, function, and performance requirements.

3. Applicant must incorporate, or agree to incorporate, any Project revisions or mitigation on which an MND would rely before public circulation.

4. Verify or update the LTA using the supported access configuration, consistent trip assignment, a complete study area, supported current or representative signal inputs, and explained near-term, horizon, and cumulative methods. Reconcile the LTA with the Woodward 46 information without transferring another project's significance conclusion.

5. Revise the Project description and all affected MND sections to analyze the whole physical action, including frontage construction and reasonably foreseeable secondary effects.

6. Reevaluate whether the complete record supports an MND. If substantial evidence supports a fair argument of a significant effect, prepare the appropriate CEQA document; if not, circulate the revised MND for public and agency review.
833
24 7.3 The City's decision remains limited
Affirming ADM 2026-5226 would not deny the Project or require the Applicant to accept one conceptual frontage improvement scenario. It would require the Project and environmental analysis to converge on the same supported physical action before the City asks the public to review the proposed MND.

If a revised MND is later circulated, the City remains obligated to consider comments and new information. Depending on the record, the City may obtain additional analysis, revise mitigation, recirculate the MND, or prepare an EIR before final action. Denial of this appeal therefore preserves, rather than prejudges, the City's later CEQA and land-use responsibilities.

7.4 Conclusion
Conclusion: The City finds in its independent judgment as lead agency under CEQA that the current document does not yet provide a sufficiently accurate and stable Project description, a coordinated access and emergencyaccess design, a supported frontage configuration, or a sufficiently reliable technical basis for the City's proposed environmental conclusions. The City may deny Appeal AA26-0004 and affirm ADM 2026-5226 without denying the Project or selecting the final Project design.
834
25 Appendix A. Consolidated Processing Chronology
Application Timeline
Review Submittal
Date &
Application
Status
Return Date/ Summary of Review
1 st 12/21/17
Incomplete
1/2018
 Notified applicant on not exempt under CEQA
 Missing submittal items: GPA supplemental studies/information, Traffic Study, Water & Sewer study, Lighting plan, Roof plan, biology report,  Incomplete information on plans: Mission Road frontage improvements, Woodward driveway, on-site pedestrian circulation & connection, CAP requirements/checklist, on-site amenities, elevations, impacts on floodway/floodplain, emergency access/requirements, geotechnical report, SWQMP sizing BMPs.
2 nd 10/20/18
Incomplete
11/15/2018
 Traffic Study and Biological Resources letter report not accepted by City
 Inconsistencies with land use requirements
 Missing items: Floodway analysis, VWD water & sewer study, Complete CAP submittal, GHG analysis
3 rd 10/8/2019
Incomplete
11/8/2019
 Missing items: Public benefit analysis, land use analysis, infrastructure & community services impact analysis, redlined SPA & GPA, GHG, complete CAP submittal, VWD water sewer study, sight distance exhibits, traffic queueing analysis
 Inconsistencies with land use requirements
4 th 8/30/20
Incomplete
9/3/2020
 Missing items: Public benefit analysis, land use analysis, infrastructure & community services impact analysis, redlined SPA & GPA, GHG analysis, complete CAP submittal, sight distance exhibits, VMT analysis, Flood analysis
5 th 5/3/22
Deemed Complete
6/3/2022
 Application was deemed complete
 Requires updated VMT analysis, sight distance memo, geotechnical report, public benefit analysis, land use analysis, and infrastructure & community services impact analysis
 Need items to be submitted all together including draft MND, biological report
 Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
6 th 4/15/23 5/15/2023
 Requires updated VMT analysis, sight distance memo, geotechnical report, public benefit analysis, land use analysis, and infrastructure & community services impact analysis, public notice package 835
26  Need items to be submitted all together including draft MND, biological report
 Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
7 th 5/14/24 6/13/24
 Requires updated VMT analysis, draft MND, biological report, flood analysis, fiscal & economic analysis, VWD memo
 ATP improvements required
 TDM plan required
 Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
8 th 05/27/25  Requires updating Traffic Study traffic data, 2018 traffic data not representative of existing conditions
 Requires Traffic Study to analyze missing roadway segment where Mission driveway was proposed, address trip distribution, and base analysis on existing traffic signal timing.
 ATP improvements required
 Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
9 th 09/23/25  Requires updating Traffic Study traffic data, 2018 traffic data not representative of existing conditions
 Requires Traffic Study to analyze missing roadway segment where Mission driveway was proposed, address trip distribution, and base analysis on existing traffic signal timing.
 ATP improvements required
 Project requires CLOMR submittal to FEMA
ADM
2026-
5226
07/02/2026 City Manager issued Administrative Decision determining MND was not sufficiently complete or adequate to begin public circulation.

Appeal
AA26-
0004
July 13, 2026 Applicant appealed ADM 2026-5226 to City Council via AA24-0004. A supplemental appeal letter was submitted on July 31, 2026. 836
27 Appendix B. Principal Authorities and Technical References B.1 Statutes, regulations, and local code
Public Resources Code § 21064.5 — Defines an MND and requires applicant-made or agreed revisions before public review. Source
Public Resources Code § 21080(c)-(g) — Sets the negative-declaration/fair-argument framework, defines substantial evidence, and preserves separate challenges to conditions. Source Public Resources Code § 21082.1(c) — Requires independent review, analysis, circulation of documents reflecting independent judgment, and an independent-judgment finding.

CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(a), 15063, 15064(f), 15070, 15071, 15073.5, 15124(c), 15125, 15378 — Govern information requests, Initial Study content, fair-argument review, MND preparation and content, recirculation, project description, baseline, and the whole action.

San Marcos Municipal Code §§ 18.04.060, 18.04.100, 18.04.130 — Assign local responsibility, authorize information requests and expanded study, require revisions before public notice, and govern negative declarations. Source San Marcos Municipal Code § 17.40.060(a) — Requires street construction and improvement consistent with adopted circulation plans, design criteria, standards, and specifications.

General Plan Mobility Element — Provide local roadway, multimodal, safety, connectivity, and developmentimprovement policy. Source Active Transportation Plan — Focuses on encouraging non-motorized modes of transportation—primarily walking and biking. Source
B.2 Cases
County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 — Explains the need for an accurate, stable, and finite Project description for meaningful CEQA review. Source Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 328 — Rejects an inflexible baseline rule while requiring substantial-evidence support for the selected measurement. Source
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-309 — Rejects deferring impact study and mitigation formulation until after negative-declaration approval. Source Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 — Distinguishes permissible later detail from deferral of material information needed to understand foreseeable effects. Source
IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100 — Addresses the LOS-to-VMT transition relied upon by the Applicant; scope of the City's agreement should be confirmed in the record.

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 – Established that condition must have an essential nexus to public problem created caused by new development.

Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374 – Requires that extent of an exaction have a reasonable relationship to the magnitude of the project’s impacts, a rough proportionality.

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601 U.S. 267,
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854.
837
28 B.3 Transportation and pedestrian guidance
California MUTCD 2026, § 4I.06 — Uses 3.5 ft/s for general pedestrian clearance and directs consideration of 2.8 ft/s where older or disabled pedestrians routinely use the crosswalk. Source FHWA, STEP Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements — Describes conventional curb extensions and other geometric, visibility, signing, lighting, refuge, and marking tools; warns that a conventional extension should not intrude into travel or bicycle lanes. Source
FHWA Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population (Report No. FHWA-SA-14-015) — Describes importance of curb design and radii for right-turning design vehicles as a consideration of pedestrian crossing time and the safe handling of vehicle/pedestrian crossing conflicts. Source NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, Curb Extensions — Describes curb extension as an umbrella term and identifies potential crossing, visibility, turning-speed, bus, and drainage considerations. Source City of San Marcos Urban Street Design Criteria — Provides local arterial-access and street design criteria; exact applicable edition and quoted language must be placed in the record. Source 838
29 Appendix C. Exaction Analysis of Right-of-Way Dedication and Frontage Improvements dated August 14, 2025
LANIKAI DEVELOPMENT:

EXACTION ANALYSIS OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND

FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS

INTRODUCTION
Lanikai Partners LLC (Lanikai) proposes to construct a senior housing development at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Mission Avenue with Woodward Drive (the Development) (Attachment 1). Analysis of anticipated traffic counts and other aspects of the environmental review conducted to date have identified that the Development will create impacts to the City’s infrastructure, particularly the transportation network. Accordingly, the City has required the Development to dedicate public right-of-way to support transportation improvements and to construct frontage improvements.

The applicant disputes the requirement to dedicate the public right-of-way and to construct the frontage improvements, citing Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601
U.S. 267. This memorandum documents the evaluation of those concerns and demonstrates the nexus and the rough proportionality between the imposition of right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements on the one hand and the Development’simpact on the City’s facilities on the other, as required under current law.

METHODOLOGY
The City’s evaluation of whether the exaction of right-of-way and associated frontage improvements for the Development constitutes a taking was conducted using a multistep methodology grounded in constitutional principles, California statutory requirements, and relevant case law.

The methodology is as follows:

1. Establish the legal framework by identifying the applicable legal standards for land use exactions.

2. Document the development characteristics for use in determining 839
30 project impacts.

3. Identify and quantify the development impacts to City infrastructure based on project- and site-specific characteristics. These impacts occur at both a citywide and
local level. Citywide infrastructure impacts are quantified on both a physical (i.e., 100 linear feet of travel lane) and a financial basis.

4. Identify the required exactions and project requirements, including right-ofway dedication, frontage improvements, public facilities fees, and project impact mitigations. Assess the General Plan consistency implications of the required exactions.

5. Evaluate the essential nexus between the project impacts and the required exactions.

6. Identify and quantify the burden on the development imposed by the required exactions.

7. Evaluate the rough proportionality by comparing the financial and physical scope of the required exactionsto the quantified impact of the project on public facilities.

8. Assess the economic viability of the project with the required exactions by evaluating whether the required exactions would deny the developer all economically viable use of the property.

9. Evaluate compliance under the legal framework established in Step 1.

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The City’s authority to impose dedications and exactions is constrained by the U.S.

Constitution and California law. The governing principles are:
 Nollan (1987): There must be an essential nexus between a legitimate public purpose and the condition imposed.
 Dolan (1994): There must be rough proportionality between the exaction and the development’s impact.
 Sheetz (2024) 601 U.S. 267, Sheetz (2025) 2025 WL 2116363: These requirements apply even to exactions imposed through legislative frameworks, such as development impact fees or general plan policies.  Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.): The City must make five findings: (1) purpose of the fee; (2) use of fee; (3) benefit relationship; (4) burden relationship; and
(5) proportionality. This methodology was found to be consistent with the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests in the 2025 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision by the 3
rd District Court of Appeals on remand from the
Supreme Court. This is further discussed in Attachment 7. 840
31 2. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Lanikai is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA17-0003), Specific Plan Amendment (SP17-0004), and Multi-Family Site Development Plan (MFSDP19-0001) to construct an age 55+ residential development and associated infrastructure improvements.

The Development proposes to construct 115 units over four floors, with a total building size of approximately 106,300 square feet and 50 feet in height. The Development includes a mix of residential unit sizes including studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. Interior community areas include a library/TV room, fitness room, and a great room with kitchen.

Exterior spaces include private balconies or patios for each unit and a community patio area with lap pool. A site layout is provided in Attachment 2.

A rate of 3.1 persons per dwelling unit is typically assumed for population growth determination. However, given the age-restricted nature of the proposed 115-unit project, up to 2 persons per unit are assumed. Therefore, the Development would potentially add an estimated 230 people to the area, excluding employees.

The 174,676 square foot project site (Assessor’s Parcel 220-063-04-00) is currently vacant land itself and bounded by vacant land to the north, Woodward Drive to the East, Mission Road to the South, and San Marcos Creek to the West. The surrounding neighborhood includes residential development, light rail transit, a public library, a community center, the Senior Activity Center, regional bike facilities, Richmar Park (0.25 miles west), Hollandia Park (0.8 miles east), and City Hall; see Attachment 3. The site is relatively flat.

The Development proposes to include two separate access points, one on Woodward Street and a second on Mission Road. The Development seeks to have a right-turn-in, left-turn-out entry along Mission Road, which is not consistent with the City’s Urban Street Design Criteria (USDG). The City has offered that it could contemplate allowing the second (Mission Road) driveway access point if the impacts of the new driveway are properly mitigated.

3. DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
The Development proposes 230 new residents, adding drivers, pedestrians, transit users, and cyclists to Mission Road, Woodward Street, and the City transportation network in general. The traffic study indicatesthe Development will generate 167,900 Estimated Annual Trips (EAT). In addition, the introduction of senior residents, proposed driveway locations, and the particular site conditions have specific impacts for both citywide and local infrastructure needs.
841
32 The impacts of the Development on the transportation network are not confined to the segment of street directly adjacent to the site. By definition, transportation infrastructure exists to move people and goods across a connected network; it is by definition a system. A trip generated by the Development will not start and end at the project frontage; it will traverse multiple roadway segments and active transportation facilities citywide. Some of these facilities exist, and others do not.

Consequently, when new residents of the Development travel throughout the community, they will impose incremental burdens on the entire citywide transportation system of roadways, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle facilities, extending well beyond the Development’s immediate frontage. This principle is widely recognized in transportation planning and impact analyses, where facility needs are expressed in terms of miles traveled rather than just along-site frontage segments.

The constitutional “rough proportionality” standard established in Dolan v. City of Tigard (512 U.S. 374, 1994) requires that the extent of an exaction have a reasonable relationship to the magnitude of the project’s impacts. (Sheetz 2025 WL 2116363 *17.) The citywide network serves the entire trip, and all facilities along the trip are needed for that travel to be possible. Therefore, it is proportionate to require the Development to construct improvements along its own frontage; this is a fair and measurable share of the facilities it will rely upon. This is especially true because the frontage is part of a designated facility in the City’s General Plan or Active Transportation Plan, ensuring network continuity and safety.

Even where some or all roadway, pedestrian, or bicycle segments already exist along the frontage, those facilities may require widening, accessibility enhancements, or the addition of missing multimodal elements such as bike lanes, transit enhancements, or sidewalks to complete the Citywide transportation network. In engineering terms, transportation infrastructure is not “present or absent;” it has varying capacity, safety performance, and compliance with standards. A substandard bike lane, for example, may not safely accommodate increased bicycle volumes, especially where vulnerable users (such as seniors) are expected. The additional demand fromthe Developmentjustifies upgrading that segment to meet the City’s ultimate network as required in the General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. In the absence of these improvements, the new residents’ ability to safely and efficiently complete their trips would be compromised, and the City’s networklevel goals such as congestion mitigation and safety for vulnerable road users, and regional goals such as reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gases would be undermined.

The transportation network is a system-based public facility, and impacts from the proposed Development will occur citywide, not just at the site frontage. Requiring the Development to 842
33 construct improvements along its frontage is an equitable and legally defensible method of ensuring that each new development project contributes a proportionate share toward the network it depends on. This approach satisfies the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards under Nollan, Dolan, and Sheetz, and complies with the individualized determination requirement of both federal and California law, as discussed below.
3A. Roadway, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facility Impacts from the Development Dolan requires “some sort of individualized determination” that the nature and extent of the exaction relate to the development’s projected impacts. In this case, trip generation and citywide roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle demand analyses quantify the incremental facility demand attributable to the project. Those impacts are far greater than the value of the frontage improvements required, satisfying the “extent” prong of Dolan.

The Supreme Court in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (601 U.S. 267, 2024) confirmed that the Nollan/Dolan standards apply equally to legislatively adopted conditions, such as general plan requirements or fee programs. Thus, even when frontage improvements are required pursuant to citywide policy such as the General Plan or the Active Transportation Plan, the City’s approach of matching each development’s responsibility to its own frontage, rather than a greater segment, is a measured and constitutionally sound allocation of the burden.

For purposes of this analysis, the City considered that the predominant impact of the Development to City facilities would be to the transportation network, primarily to pedestrian, roadway, and bicycle infrastructure citywide. The assessment below quantifies the physical improvements that must be constructed citywide to support the proposed Development and attributes financial costs to the same.

Roadway Infrastructure
The City’s adopted Development Impact Fee Nexus Study1indicates that, “the need for transportation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development… Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the citywide system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.” The Development will generate 167,900 Estimated Annual Trips (EAT) and will therefore place an increased demand on the citywide transportation network.

SANDAG current (2016) data indicates that the project location, Census Tract 200.22, will generate 19.3 vehicle miles traveled per capita per day. The Development population 1 https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28857/638639102721170000 843
34 estimate is 230 residents, neglecting employees. Therefore, Lanikai proposes an impact of 1,162,235 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to City infrastructure, each trip requiring an average of 9.65 lane miles of roadway infrastructure.

Therefore, the impact of the development on the citywide need for roadway infrastructure is

9.65 lane miles. The cost of providing this roadway infrastructure is a minimum of $2,934,835 (Attachment 6).

Pedestrian Infrastructure
The Development will generate a population of 230 residents. Available documentation does not indicate the number of employees proposed; accordingly, the impact of employees on City infrastructure has not been evaluated and is in addition to the impacts addressed here.

SANDAG’s nonmotorized database system for location 10016_Eleg further west on Mission Road indicates that segment was used by 336 pedestrians and 106 cyclists, indicative of active transportation usage of Mission Road. Assuming a relatively low walk share proportion at 5% from the proposed Development, 23 pedestrian trips per day can be expected based off the 167,900 Estimate Annual Trips.

The City finds no evidence to support Lanikai’s claims in its environmental documents that the age-55+ residents will “recreate onsite” and will not use pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

Quite to the contrary, residents are anticipated to use City pedestrian facilities and therefore are considered to increase pedestrian demand. Key destinations within 0.5 miles are shopping and local businesses, the Inland Rail Trail, city hall, the community center, and two parks, all of which are anticipated to be active transportation destinations for the proposed residents. Based on an individualized assessment of the specific resident population and the destinations to which that population may wish to travel, the City established the three most likely pedestrian destinations for the Development residents as the Civic Center Sprinter Station, San Marcos Public Library, and the San Marcos Senior Activity Center. These destinations are mapped in Attachment 3.

Table 1: Active Transportation (Pedestrian and Bicycle) Destinations Destination Travel Distance (Feet) Travel
Distance
(Miles)
Sprinter Station 480 feet 0.09 miles
Library 850 feet 0.16 miles
Senior Activity Center 2,065 feet 0.39 miles
844
35 The impact of the Development on the need for citywide pedestrian facilities is 3,395 linear feet of pedestrian pathway, valued at a minimum of $129,010 (Attachment 6).

Bicycle Infrastructure
Bicycle trips generated by the Development are most likely to be to/from the active transportation destinations described in the Pedestrian Infrastructure section in Attachment

6. Bicycling distances to the destinations described in Table 1 measured roughly the same as the pedestrian distances. Assuming a low bicycle mode share of just 1%, the Development would generate 1,679 bicycle trips per year.

The impact of the Development on the need for citywide bicycle facilities is 3,395 linear feet of bicycle infrastructure, valued at a minimum of $130,368 (Attachment 6). 3B. Local Impacts of the Development
The bike lanes on the frontage of the property are required as part of the Active Transportation Plan in the City’s General Plan and are thus legislatively imposed land use exactions. Additionally, there are required project improvements needed to address specific concerns resulting from the Development design, population, and location. The following sections further analyze the needs of the proposed residents for the transportation improvements required by the City.

Increased Multimodal Demand from Land Use Change
The land use change from Commercial to Senior Residential will shift trip generation from an auto-centric use commercial to a more multi-modal oriented residential use, with senior residents visiting local destinations as shown in Attachment 3 and generating more active transportation trips than a commercial development would likely have generated. This increased multi-modal demand must be mitigated through the provision of appropriate active transportation facilities.

Lack of Resident Access to Active Transportation Network No bike lane exists along the Mission Road frontage of the Development. A bike lane currently exists to the east and the west of the Development; only this segment is missing.

With the impact introduced by a new population of residents, the missing segment of bicycle infrastructure must be provided and must meet the ultimate standards required in the General Plan and Active Transportation Plan. The comment that the street must be widened and the bike lane added was made on the initial improvement plan review for the Development.
845
36 A refusal to provide the facilities to connect the proposed senior residents to their community via the active transportation network will prevent the residentsfrom using active transportation to access the key destinations identified in this analysis and increase the number of near-distance vehicular trips, impacting vehicle miles traveled and further increasing the burden on the City to reduce vehicle miles traveled citywide.

Pedestrian Crossing Impacts
The Development proposes to introduce senior residents with slower walking speeds, which would increase intersection delay unless mitigated. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System notes that older pedestrians generally walk significantly slower than the standard design walking speed of

3.5 feet persecond, requiring adjustments to the signal timing to allow safe crossing (FHWA, 2013). To accommodate this, the Woodward Street/ Mission Road traffic signal must be retimed to extend the pedestrian clearance interval, which would increase vehicular delay at the intersection. The increase in the pedestrian clearance time over Mission Road would decrease vehicular green time through the intersection. Further, this delay would cause extended vehicular idling at a key intersection, increasing greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

The installation of a curb return popout with the frontage improvements, as proposed by the City in its plan review comments, would mitigate at least a portion of this Development impact. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Handbook and NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide, curb extensions can reduce crossing distances, thereby lessening the amount of additional green time that is needed for pedestrian clearance, improving intersection efficiency, and enhancing pedestrian safety (ITE, 2010; NACTO, 2013).

The crossing distance from the Development over Mission Road is approximately 112 linear feet. Therefore, the impact from the senior population could increase pedestrian crossing times by up to 6.6 seconds. For instance, it would take an average resident six seconds to travel a distance of 21 feet at the pedestrian crossing, and it would take an average senior resident 7.2 seconds to travel the same distance. Therefore, construction of a curb popout that shortens the crossing distance by 21 feet would reduce the time of crossing, and the associated vehicular delay, by more than half a second per cycle.

Accessible Bus Stop
A bus stop exists along the Development frontage to the north side of Mission Road. The proposed senior residents are a target population for transit, and also a population in need of accessible design, as seniors are significantly more likely to be disabled. The bus stop 846
37 must provide the proposed residents with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant design to facilitate the use of transit. The ADA-compliant bus stop must not negatively impact vehicular travel, bicycle trips, or pedestrian travel continuing along Mission Road. In addition, the bus stop must consider the conflicting movements of the southbound right turns from Woodward Street onto westbound Mission into the non-standard drop lane and the new driveway the Development proposesto introduce on Mission Road, a prime arterial.

The City-proposed improvements include a curb return popout, separated bike facility, and ADA-compliant bus bay to achieve these requirements.

New Driveway on Mission Creates Conflicts
The senior residential development proposes two new driveways: one on Woodward Street and one on Mission Road.

Mission Road is already a complex arterial. The City’s Urban Streets Design Criteria (USDC) provide that new driveways on an arterial are not allowed if any other access is available.

Driveways may be provided only when “absolutely necessary.” The Development proposes a driveway on Woodward Street, a location that meets the City’s USDC, and therefore a driveway on Mission Road should not be allowed. However, staff contemplated allowing the driveway as a concession through collaboration with the developer and expected staff comments to be addressed. Unfortunately, Lanikai has persisted in proposing the Mission driveway opening while not agreeing to address the staff comments to allow it.

The new driveway on Mission would introduce two new traffic conflict points where none exist today, and it is located less than 400 feet away from the Mission/Woodward intersection, in an area with a merge lane and existing bus stop. Introduction of the new driveway poses movements that potentially conflict with:
o Right turns from Woodward to Mission.
o Cyclists traveling westbound along the bike route.
o Impaired visibility and merging issues with bus operations in the vicinity of the proposed driveway.

Without mitigation, such as a protected bikeway, the additional conflict points would expose roadway users to merging, crossing, and turning vehicles, degrading the safety of the corridor. As the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide notes, even low-volume driveways can meaningfully affect the comfort and safety of cyclists, and protection is especially important where vulnerable users such as senior residents are expected (NACTO, 2014).
847
38 A separated bikeway is designed specifically to reduce the types of conflicts that Lanikai proposes to introduce with the creation of a new driveway on the Mission Road arterial. The separated bikeway provides a physical separation between bicyclists and moving vehicles.

Caltrans Design Information Bulletin DIB 89 recommends separated facilities in situations with driveways and the need to enhance cyclist safety. The physical protection offered by a separated bikeway allows vulnerable cyclists to safely stop outside of the travel lane if a vehicle is entering or exiting the new driveway, thereby reducing collision risk, and improving corridor safety.

Likewise, without mitigation, the proposed Mission Road driveway introduces a more hazardous situation for bus operations. Collisions could occur as bus operators attempt to arrive or depart from the bus stop as drivers are entering and leaving the proposed Mission Road driveway and cars are simultaneouslymerging ontoMissionRoad fromWoodward Street.

In order to allow the Mission Road driveway, its impacts must be mitigated. This can be done with the provision of separated bicycling facilities to remove the conflict between driveway traffic and cyclists, and adding a curb return popout to isolate the proposed driveway traffic from merging Woodward traffic.

Woodward Driveway Improvements to Prohibit Exiting Left Turns The Woodward 46 project is on the easterly side of Woodward Street, opposite the Development. Woodward 46 takes its sole access from Woodward Street and has no alternative access available. It was entitled prior to the Lanikai Development with the driveway as proposed.

The Lanikai Development also proposes a driveway on Woodward Street, opposite the Woodward 46 driveway. Vehicles exiting Woodward 46 and the Lanikai Development would need to cross oncoming traffic and travel in the opposing travel lane to avoid colliding with each other (Figure 1). Eliminating the conflicting left turn out of the Lanikai Development avoids the conflicting movements, so the Lanikai driveway can only be constructed as a rightin, left-in, and right-out driveway. The City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer therefore require physical improvements such as a “pork chop” to direct exiting vehicles and prevent the left turn out from the Lanikai Development; vehicles wishing to make the northbound movement can make a U-turn at the Woodward/Mission signal. 848
39 Figure 1: Woodward Street Turning Movements, Provided by Lanikai

4. REQUIRED EXACTIONS: DEDICATION, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS,

AND PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES
The City requires a dedication of 16 feet along Woodward Drive and a dedication of 14 feet along Mission Road to accommodate the ultimate public improvements. This dedication is needed to address safety and design concerns particular to this proposed Development and to comply with the City’s Active Transportation Plan and the City’s General Plan as further discussed in Attachment 7.

The City requires that the Development construct frontage improvements including pedestrian facilities, bicycle improvements, and pavement widening for the bus stop and the proposed right turn from Mission Road into the Development. The City also requires a curb pop-out to direct right-turning traffic from Woodward around the vehicles turning into the proposed Mission driveway and to shorten the pedestrian crossing over Mission Road to accommodate the proposed senior residents. Finally, the City requires that the Woodward driveway be constructed in a fashion to avoid conflicts from left turns exiting the Development.
849
40 5. ESSENTIAL NEXUS
A direct and essential nexus exists between the City’s requirements to dedicate and construct transportation improvements and the burden the Development will impose upon City facilities.

The nexus is the introduction of a population that will utilize the citywide transportation network, which includes roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. This impact is new, additive, and measurable. Development will contribute to citywide traffic, including increasing vehicular delay in portions of San Marcos Blvd. and Twin Oaks Valley Road. The City has a legitimate interest in mitigating the effects of the Development on the citywide traffic and reducing traffic congestion has been found to be a legitimate government interest. (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 2025 WL 2116363, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 387).

By the addition of new residents, pedestrian and bicycle demand, and vehicular trips, the Development will generate a clear and direct impact on the citywide transportation network.

The right-of-way dedication and the construction of public improvements have an essential nexus to these citywide transportation impacts. The General Plan and Active Transportation Plan identify the ultimate improvements needed to accommodate growth in the city, which are constructed incrementally as new development is proposed.

Further, the Development proposes to cause impacts to bicycle, bus, pedestrian, and vehicular traffic locally, at the intersection of Mission Road and Woodward Street and additional impacts from the Woodward driveway design. Addressing these impacts is warranted and directly related to the impacts posed by Lanikai.

City staff have analyzed the Development and have concluded that the City’s requirements have an essential nexus to legitimate public interests. Further, the City has found that the burden of the City’s exactions are roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the Development on the City’s infrastructure, as discussed below.

6. BURDEN OF THE EXACTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT
The City requires that Lanikai dedicate right-of-way and construct frontage improvements roughly proportional to the demand generated by the Development and to the impacts of the Development on City infrastructure and facilities. Rough proportionality refers to the “degree of connection” between the permit conditions and the projected public impacts or social 850
2 Commercial real estate data and analytics
system.
costs of the Development. (Dolan, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 386; see also Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (2024) 601 U.S. 267, 275-276). “No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the [government] must make some sort of individualized determination that the [land-use exaction] is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” (Dolan, at p. 391, italics added.) In other words, the government “must make some effort to quantify its findings” in support of the required private property dedication beyond mere conclusory statements. (Id. at pp. 395-396, italics added.) One method by which to make an individualized determination of the burden imposed upon the Development by the required dedication and improvement construction is to consider the sum of the value of the land dedicated for public improvements plus the cost of construction of the physical improvements. This cost can then be compared to the burden the development places on citywide facilities to assess the proportionality.

Accordingly, in order to quantify its findings in this analysis, the City determines the extent of pedestrian, bicycle, and roadway improvement demand generated citywide by the Development and compares that demand to the physical extent of the facilities needed citywide to serve this specific development. Additionally, this analysis determines the value of the land to be dedicated by Lanikai and calculates the dollar value of the improvement construction required of the development. Finally, the analysis measures the dollar value of the development’s burden against the dollar value of the citywide improvements needed to serve the development.

Land Value
The City estimates a dedication of less than 15,000 square feet with an estimated value of $369,450. The value of the land is based on the estimated area of dedication multiplied by the average cost per square foot based on recent data for vacant property sold within the City of San Marcos over the preceding 7 months, available through Costar2. Sales data includes similar entitled and non-entitled properties for sale or with active options resulting in an average cost of $24.63 per square foot. Source data is supplied in Attachment 4 to this letter.

Cost of Improvements
Improvement quantity takeoffs are estimated because Lanikai has not provided plans showing the proposed improvements. The estimated cost of improvements in the public 851
3 https://www.sanmarcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/28153/638405912675870000 right-of-way is calculated in Attachment 5 and is based upon City’s approved Unit Price List3.

The total sum of the property dedication and the public improvement construction is given in Table 1 below.

Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden of Required Dedication and Frontage Improvements Location Item Cost
Woodward and
Mission
Right-of-Way Dedication $369,450
Woodward Improvementsto Public Right-of-Way $87,560
Mission Improvementsto Public Right-of-Way $50,916
Total Impact to the Development: $507,926

7. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN BURDEN ON DEVELOPMENT
AND THE DEVELOPMENT’S IMPACTS
The improvements required of the Development bear a direct and proportional relationship to the transportation impacts generated by the Development on citywide facilities.

One way to assess the rough proportionality of the burden placed on the Development is to analyze the valuation of the land and improvements required of Lanikai and compare it to the valuation of the Citywide facilities necessitated by the Development. The table below sums the total value of the demand for public facilities to serve the Development.

Table 3: Total Burden Development Places on Citywide Facilities Item Cost
Pedestrian Infrastructure Burden $129,010
Bicycle Infrastructure Burden $130,368
Roadway Infrastructure Burden $2,934,835
Total: $3,194,213
Analyzing only the pedestrian and roadway facilities impacts, the valuation of Development impacts on Citywide infrastructure is $3,194,213. The approximate financial burden placed on the Development for right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements on Woodward 852
Street and Mission Road is $507,926. Therefore, the impact of the Development on Citywide facilities exceeds the burden placed on Lanikai.

The total area of the right-of-way dedication is estimated at lessthan 15,000 square feet and represents less than 10% of the gross property area of 174,676 square feet.

8. ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Lanikai has indicated that dedication of required right-of-way will necessitate a redesign of the Development, possibly making the project infeasible. However, numerous design permutations are possible on this property.

For example, the current design does not maximize the developable density of the site. The project site has a General Plan designation of Specific Plan Area (Heart of the City Specific Plan – Commercial). Lanikai is proposing an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOCSP) to change the site to Senior Residential. Commercial uses within the HOCSP have a maximum lot coverage of 35%. The Development proposes lot coverage of approximately 16%, which is far less intense than would otherwise be allowed within the approved Specific Plan and General Plan. As Lanikai’s proposed Development uses a significantly lower percentage of the lot than what was contemplated for a commercial use of the project site, the dedication of the right of way will not prevent Lanikai from designing the Development in a viable way.

Additionally, the Development design includes 135 parking spaces, exceeding the 115-space requirement per the Heart of the City Specific Plan. A redesign of the Development’s site plan to include the required right-of-way dedication may reduce the space for some of these parking spaces, but it would not make the Development infeasible.

The Supreme Court has “long recognized that land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests’ and does not ‘den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land.’” (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 834.) Furthermore, “[o]nly when a permit is denied and the effect of the denial is The Development will generate a need for 3,395 linear feet each of pedestrian and bicycle facilities Citywide and has been required by the City to construct approximately 985 linear feet each of pedestrian walkway and pavement for bicycles. Similarly, the Development has generated a need for 9.65 lane miles of roadway Citywide and has been required by the City to improve approximately 1,000 linear feet of roadway, less than 0.2 miles. The City’s improvement requirements are only that the Development improve the project frontage to the City transportation network, which is proportional to the Development and its impacts. 853
to prevent ‘economically viable’ use of the land in question can it be said that a taking has occurred.” (United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985) 474 U.S. 121, 127.) The required right-of-way dedication will not prevent any economically viable use of the land; many economically viable uses of the projectsite would still be available.

9. CONCLUSION: EVALUATION OF THE EXACTION
The City has analyzed the specific impacts of the proposed Development on the City’s transportation network and has found an essential nexus between the legitimate government interest of mitigating traffic congestion on the City’s transportation network and the right-of-way dedication and required improvements imposed by the City. Further, the City has provided a financial analysis of the burden placed on the Development and the projected public impact that the Development imposes on City facilities and found that the impacts to the Development are roughly proportional to projected public impact from the Development.

The land use exactions required of the Development have been found to be consistent with the nexus and rough proportionality standards required by Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. City of Tigard, Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601 U.S. 267 and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado 2025 WL 2116363.
854
ATTACHMENT 1: DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
855
ATTACHMENT 2: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
856
ATTACHMENT 3: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DESTINATIONS
857
ATTACHMENT 4: REAL PROPERTY SALES DATA
858
© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of San Marcos - 733729 7/14/2025

Page 1 ends

San Marcos City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

San Marcos City Council
September 8, 2026