San Marino City Council
February 14, 2024

AGENDA – FEBRUARY 14, 2024

CITY OF SAN MARINO

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
www.CityofSanMarino.org
(626) 300-0700 Phone
City Hall Council Chamber
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2024 AT 6:00 PM

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2200 HUNTINGTON DRIVE
SAN MARINO, CA 91108
AND
NO. 56, PINGDING RD., UNIT 56-7, 11TH FLOOR
TAMSUI DISTRICT, NEW TAIPEI CITY, TAIWAN 251
The City of San Marino appreciates your attendance. Citizens’ interest provides the Council with valuable information regarding issues of the community.

Regular meetings are held on the 2nd Wednesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. Typically, adjourned meetings are held on the last Friday of every month at 8:30 a.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a reasonable modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk via email at [email protected] or by phone at (626) 300-0705 prior to the meeting for assistance.

The public is welcome to attend the meeting in person or remotely via Zoom, however, the meeting will proceed as normal even if there are technical difficulties with Zoom. The City will do it’s best to resolve any technical issues as quickly as possible.

How to view or listen to the meeting from home:

Visit www.CityofSanMarino.org/Zoom

AGENDA – FEBRUARY 14, 2024
How to offer public comment from home:

Public comment will be accepted by email to [email protected] until 3:00 p.m. the day before the meeting. Written public comment received by 3:00 p.m. will be distributed to City Council during the meeting. Any comments received after 3:00 p.m. will be included in the public comment record but not provided to City Council at the meeting.

Written public comment will be accepted electronically via the zoom.us teleconference module during the meeting. Written Zoom comments will be accepted after the in-person comments.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
Council Member Chou, Council Member Lo, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Shepherd Romey, and Mayor Huang

POSTING OF AGENDA
The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to each meeting at the following locations: City Hall, 2200 Huntington Drive, the Crowell Public Library, 1890 Huntington Drive, and the Stoneman Building, 1560 Pasqualito Drive. The agenda is also posted on the City’s website:
http://www.cityofsanmarino.org.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
The City welcomes public input. Members of the public may address the City Council by completing a public comment card and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, the public may address the City Council on items that are not on the agenda.

Pursuant to state law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on issues not on the meeting agenda (Government Code Section 54954.2). The Mayor reserves the right to place limits on duration of comments. Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
This is an opportunity for the City Manager to inform the City Council and the public of any upcoming events or matters of interest to the community.

PRESENTATION

PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES TO SAN MARINO PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION

BOOKMARK CONTEST WINNERS

AGENDA – FEBRUARY 14, 2024

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APROVE DESIGN REVIEW CASE NOS. 21-25 & 21-73 AT 1408 WILSON AVENUE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY 418

SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION (SIGO GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC)
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council affirm the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 23-19. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to adopt City Council Resolution No. R-24-01 affirming the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 23-19 approving Design Review Permit Numbers DRC 21-25 and DR 21-73 at 1408 Wilson Avenue to allow a 287 sq ft onestory addition and a 131 sq ft second-story addition.”

NEW BUSINESS

2. RECEIVE AND FILE THE REVISED CITYWIDE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION

STUDY PREPARED BY ITERIS AND THE TRAFFIC TASK FORCE REPORT,

AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN FURTHER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

OF POTENTIAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT SAN MARINO

AVENUE/HUNTINGTON DRIVE, LOS ROBLES AVENUE/MISSION

STREET AND SIERRA MADRE BOULEVARD/ROBLES AVENUE AND
BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “QUICK FIX” CONSIDERATIONS
FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENT CITYWIDE.

Recommendation: Staff recommends 1) the City Council receive and file the revised draft Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, dated April 25 2023, prepared by Iteris, and the Traffic Task Force report, and 2) authorize staff to begin further review and analysis of potential intersection improvements at San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive, Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street, and Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue, and begin implementation of the “quick fix” considerations for the improvement of traffic safety citywide. If the Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to 1) Receive and file the Revised Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, dated April 25, 2023, prepared by Iteris, and the Traffic Task Force report, and 2) authorize staff to begin further review and analysis of potential intersection improvements at San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive, Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street, and Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue, and begin implementation of the “quick fix” considerations for the improvement of traffic safety citywide.”

AGENDA – FEBRUARY 14, 2024

CONSENT CALENDAR

3. REJECTION OF ALL BIDS FOR THE STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 23-9274
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids for the Streetlight Replacement Program Project No. 23-9274 and authorize staff to consider revising the scope of the project and/or consider other alternatives to complete the project. If the Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to reject all bids for the Streetlight Replacement Program Project No. 23- 9274.”

4. RECEIVE AND FILE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS REPORT FOR
JANUARY 2024
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council receive and file the Monthly Disbursements Report for the month of January 2024. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to receive and file the Monthly Disbursements Report for the month of January 2024.”

5. CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2023
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council receive and file this report. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to receive and file the Cash and Investment Report for the Month of December 2023.”

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council approve the January 2024 minutes.

If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 10, 2024, the adjourned regular meeting of January 26, 2024, and the special meeting of January 26, 2024.”

AGENDA – FEBRUARY 14, 2024

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC WRITINGS DISTRIBUTION
This is an opportunity to announce any written communications pertaining to the City received by members of the City Council. All public writings distributed by the City of San Marino to at least a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the Public Counter at City Hall located at 2200 Huntington Drive, San Marino, California 91108, and will also be included in the public agenda packet that will available for review at the City Council meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
Posted: 2/9/2024 ALISON WALKER

CITY CLERK

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Isidro Figueroa, Community Development Director
Camillia Martinez, Associate Planner
DATE: February 14, 2024
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APROVE DESIGN REVIEW
CASE NOS. 21-25 & 21-73 AT 1408 WILSON AVENUE FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY 418 SQUARE-FOOT

ADDITION (SIGO GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC)

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Neighborhoods
Well-Maintained Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
The applicant applied for two design review permits to construct a 287 square-foot (sq ft) one-story addition and a 131 sq ft second-story addition to an existing 2,522 sq ft, two-story, single-family residence. The project is located on a 13,657 sq ft interior lot in the R-1 zone, Area District VII, and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Low-Density Residential.

The two design review actions are required pursuant to City Code Sections

23.15.03(A2)(A3) because the project proposes to expand an existing twostory, and the ground floor addition extends the length of the side of the existing residential structure by more than 10 feet.

The project was reviewed and approved by both the Design Review Committee (“DRC”) and the Planning Commission (“Commission”). DRC reviewed the project between November 2021 through October 2022. During the course of Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member

three DRC meetings, the applicant incorporated changes to the project that were recommended by DRC that include:
• Incorporating proper design and placement of windows; • Updating Arborist Report to accurately reflect the health of the existing Oak Tree and provide protection measures to minimize the impacts of the proposed construction;
• Incorporating minor design changes to be consistent with the architecture style of the residence; and
• Reducing the size of the detached garage to under 600 square feet.

On October 19, 2022, DRC approved the project during a public hearing with an added condition that the tree preservation plan must be strictly enforced with the supervision of the City's Urban Forester. On November 3, 2023, the project was appealed by Ming Chung Cheng, Rebecca Hu, Kenneth & Beatrice Li, and Shirley Jagels (“appellants”).

On January 25, 2023, the Commission reviewed the project during a public hearing and continued the project to a date uncertain so the applicant can consider the Commission’s recommendations. On October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the project during a public hearing based on the applicant making the following changes to the project:

1. Incorporated design elements reflective of a Cape Code architectural style;

2. Updated the landscape plan to ensure no turf is planted under the oak tree as indicated in the arborist report; and

3. Incorporated wood shingle siding throughout the residence.

On November 21, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 23-19 (Attachment 1) upholding the DRC’s approval with the incorporation of the aforementioned changes. On December 5, 2023, the appellants filed an appeal for DR 21-25 (second-story addition) and DR 21-73 (side extension of more than 10 feet).

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to San Marino Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 23.07.09 – Appeals, upon receiving a notice of appeal (or itself appealing a decision of the Commission), the City Council shall either:
a. Affirm the action of the Commission; or
b. Require a summary of all evidence upon which the Planning Commission made its decision; after receiving such evidence, the

Council shall take such action as, in its opinion, is indicated by such evidence alone; or
c. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, with or without instructions, for further proceedings; or
d. Instruct the City Clerk to set the matter for hearing within seventyfive (75) days before itself, unless the applicant and all appellants consent to a later date. At such hearing, it shall hear and decide the case de novo. Such hearing shall be conducted in the manner and with the notice prescribed by the SMMC for the Planning Commission.

APPEAL
On November 21, 2023, the Planning Commission approved two design review permits associated with a single-family residence located at 1408 Wilson Avenue to allow a 287 sq ft one-story addition (DR 21-25) and a 131 sq ft second-story addition (DR 21-73).

The Commission staff report provided an analysis of the project based on the information available to staff.

The appellants filed the appeal for both Design Review permits on December 5, 2023. The letter submitted with the appeal listed a number of contentions, which are summarized below:

1. The addition of the enclosed living space on the west side (the new family room) would protrude and extend from the existing footprint of the house and will directly block the view of the house at 1406 Wilson Avenue. Also, the rear addition will block access to light, air, openness, and ambiance for the house at 1410 Wilson Avenue.

Staff Response: In accordance to San Marino Municipal Code Section

23.15.09, Design Review permits shall be approved if the approving body makes the following findings:

1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood;

2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this code;

3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines; and

4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.

In addition to making the aforementioned findings, the project must also meet the minimum requirements for a residential addition as prescribed within the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 23.01.03, the City’s Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the City Council to preserve public peace, safety, morals and general welfare of the City by requiring development standards and regulations restricting height and bulk of buildings and the areas of yards, courts and other open spaces for the purpose of providing adequate light and air; lessening congestion in the streets and other public ways; securing safety from fire, panic and other disasters and dangers; preventing the overcrowding of land or buildings; avoiding undue concentration of population; conserving the value of property; and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the City.

The project was designed in accordance to all of the applicable development standards for a residential addition such as height and massing, setbacks, parking, and landscaping. By conforming to the applicable development standards for a residential addition, the project is providing adequate light and air as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance.

Both the Commission and DRC found the project meets the required four Design Review Findings. In particular, both DRC and the Planning Commission found that the residential addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as mandated by DRC Finding No.1 and that the first and second-story addition is designed to balance the reasonable expectation of privacy to contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of the City’s Municipal Code as mandated by DRC Finding No.

2. The adjacent neighbor located at 1406 Wilson Avenue, nearest to the project’s ground floor addition, is improved with a two-story residence that extends further than the existing residence. Inclusive of the addition, the project residence will have approximately the same footprint as the neighboring residence. Please see page A1.01 of the project plans (Attachment 2).

The project’s ground addition extends 11 feet from the existing rear wall of the main residence. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 23.15.04, the

addition is required to receive approval of a Design Review permit because it extends more than 10 feet of the side of the home. If the project is designed to extend 10 feet instead of 11 feet, the ground floor addition is subject to a staff-level approval without any public hearing.

2. The appellant cites that allowing the rear family room addition with an attached patio will directly reduce the space between the main house and the detached garage. Additionally, reducing the separation between the structures will increase the hardship of having to deal with the nuisance of car noise, vibration, and exhaust fumes on a daily basis.

Staff Response: In accordance with Municipal Code Section 23.06.05 (C), a detached garage or other accessory building shall be located no less than ten feet (10') from any other building on the same lot. The distance between the new rear patio and the detached garage is 29 feet. The new setback is greater than the required 10-foot setback and will provide a 29- foot backup turning radius which is greater than the standard 25-foot backup turning radius.

The original scope of work for the project included expanding the existing 2-car garage into a 3-car garage. However, the project has been redesigned to expand the existing 2-car garage, 74 square feet to provide storage space. The 74 square-foot expansion is subject to an administrative approval and is not part of the appeal before the City Council.

The project has been designed to meet and exceed the required development standards for a residential project. Both the Commission and DRC have found the project to be designed to be compatible with the general characteristics of the surrounding residential neighborhood.

3. The appellant contends the proposed addition to the rear of the home will disturb the root system of the oak tree on the adjacent property of 1406 Wilson Avenue and is likely to result in a decline in health.

Staff Response: The project has been designed to be consistent with the existing residence and will contain a raised foundation. A raised foundation will be less intrusive to the oak tree’s root system than other foundation methods. Additionally, the existing residence is located on the majority of the oak tree’s dripline, and that area will not be touched.

The applicant provided an arborist report stating that the project would have minimal impact to the oak tree if the tree preservation plan is

implemented. The City’s Urban Forester has also reviewed the plans and the arborist report and concurs with the findings in the applicant’s report.

4. The appellant states that the proposed 74 square foot addition to the existing 2-car garage is a loophole to have a 3-car garage. Also, the addition will increase air pollution and noise for the neighbors.

Staff Response: The original scope of work for the project included expanding the existing 2-car garage into a 3-car garage. However, the project has been redesigned to expand the existing 2-car garage 74 square feet to provide storage space. The 74 square-foot expansion is an administrative approval and is not subject to a public hearing.

A 3-car garage requires an internal clearance of 30x20 sq ft (600 sq ft).

The applicant is proposing a 74 sq ft addition to the existing 525 sq ft garage, which brings the total size of the garage to 599 sq ft. As such, the proposal does not meet the minimum 3-car garage requirements, and the 74 sq ft addition will serve as storage space. Both the Commission and DRC found that the project has been designed in accordance to the residential requirements prescribed in the City’s Municipal Code which are intended to provide for adequate light and air; lessening congestion in the streets and other public ways and guide development to be consistent with the surrounding residential uses.

5. The appellant cites that all of the proposed construction will be a significant detriment to the air quality, noise, and unobscured view of each of the neighboring properties.

Staff Response: The project has been designed to meet and exceed the required development standards for a residential project. Both the Commission and DRC have found the project to be designed to be compatible with the general characteristics of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The project has been designed in accordance with all of the applicable development standards for a residential addition, such as height and massing, setbacks, parking, and landscaping. By conforming to the applicable development standards for a residential addition, the project is providing adequate light and air as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance.

The City’s Municipal Code does not contain a View Ordinance; therefore, this project is only subject to the applicable residential development standards contained within the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Similar to any other construction projects occurring in the City, the project is subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance.

6. The appellant contends that the applicant, SIGO GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC is a developer who will adversely and
significantly affect the status quo and the enjoyment of their homes as neighbors.

Staff Response: Both the Commission and DRC reviewed the project based on the project’s conformity to the City’s governing documents and determined that the project has been designed in accordance with all of the applicable development standards for a residential addition, such as height and massing, setbacks, parking, and landscaping. Additionally, the Commission and DRC found that the project met all the required design review findings and that the project had been designed to be compatible with the general characteristics of the surrounding residential neighborhood.

7. The appellant states the applicant failed to communicate with the neighbors regarding their plans and failed to make the proposed design more amenable to the neighborhood concerns. They also feel railroaded by the applicant and City Staff on their rights to enjoy their homes.

Staff Response: As part of the Neighborhood Input Letter process, the applicant is only required to reach out to the surrounding neighbors before the first public hearing. Both the Commission and DRC took into account the testimony provided by the appellants during the project’s public hearings. The applicant has redesigned the project to address the majority of the suggestions and comments made by both the Commission and DRC.

The Commission and DRC found that the project met all the required DRC findings and that the project had been designed to be compatible with the general characteristics of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Staff mailed the appropriate public hearing notices for all the required meetings.

Staff were not approached by any of the appellants requesting to meet or speak with staff prior to the public hearings until after the Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 2023.

8. The appellant believes that there was a failure in due process for the public hearing noticing of the October 25, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting.

Staff Response: Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 23.15.06, staff are required to mail public notices for a residential addition 10 days before the public hearing. For the Planning Commission meeting held on October 25, 2023, the public hearing notices were mailed out on October 13, 2023, 12

days before the meeting. According to the appellants, only 1 appellant received the public hearing notice, and the remaining 2 did not receive the public hearing notice. The appellants previously received the public hearing notices for all public hearings and did not approach staff with any concerns regarding the delivery of the public hearing notices.

In an effort to ensure the appellants were aware of the City Council’s consideration of this appeal, staff emailed the appellants informing them of the City Council meeting’s date, location, and time. Additionally, staff mailed out the public hearing notices as previously done for both the DRC and Planning Commission public hearings.

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING
The project is for the construction of an approximately 418 square-foot, first and second-story addition to an existing approximately 2,522 square-foot, single-family home. Pursuant to Section 21084 of the California Public Resource Code, the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Sections 15301 and 15303, Class 1 and Class 3, and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
None are associated with this action.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council affirm the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 23-19. If the City Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:
“I move to adopt City Council Resolution No. R-24-01 affirming the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 23-19 approving Design Review Permit Numbers DRC 21-25 and DR 21-73 at 1408 Wilson Avenue to allow a 287 sq ft one-story addition and a 131 sq ft second-story addition.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Resolution PCR 23-19

2. Project Plans

3. Neighborhood Map

4. Neighborhood Input Letters

5. Arborist Report Dated May 16, 2022

6. Appeal Documentation

7. Story Pole Photos

8. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 25, 2023

9. City Council Resolution R-24-01

JTL Consultants
Consulting Arborists and Botanists
952 Buena Vista Street • Duarte, CA 91010
(626) 358-5690 • [email protected]
JTLconsultants.com
Tree Protection Report
1408 Wilson Road
San Marino, CA 91108
Prepared For:

Stephen Goei
1141 Fremont Avenue
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(626) 688-9222
Prepared By:

Ted and Jeannine Lubeshkoff
Registered Consulting Arborists
May 16, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 Assignment ................................................................................................................ 1 Limits of Assignment .................................................................................................. 2 Purpose and Use of the Report.................................................................................. 2 Observations ................................................................................................................. 2 Site Description .......................................................................................................... 2 Tree Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 2 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 3 Change in Grade........................................................................................................ 3 Mechanical Damage .................................................................................................. 4 Trenching ................................................................................................................... 4 Soil Compaction ......................................................................................................... 4 Pavement ................................................................................................................... 4 Planting under Oaks................................................................................................... 5 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 5 Glossary......................................................................................................................... 6 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 7 Appendix A – Tree Location Map................................................................................. 8 Appendix B – Aerial Image ........................................................................................... 9 Appendix C – Photos .................................................................................................. 10 Appendix D – Assumptions and Limiting Conditions.............................................. 15 Appendix E – Certificate of Performance.................................................................. 16 Site Plan......................................................................................................... Attachment

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 1 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Summary
Stephen Goei requested a Tree Protection Report, required by the City of San Marino, for a construction project at 1408 Wilson Avenue in San Marino. Stephen plans to remodel and enlarge an existing house and detached garage. There are seven on-site trees and one off-site tree classified as Established Trees1 by the City of San Marino. The Tree Protection Report is required to show how the Established Trees will be protected during the construction project.

JTL Consultants conducted a site and tree inspection on April 1, 2020. One coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is on the west side of the house; two coast live oaks are in the backyard; and one olive tree (Olea europaea), one incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and two Southern magnolia trees (Magnolia grandiflora) are in the front yard. One coast live oak on the neighbor’s property overhangs into the backyard of this property.

The potential impacts of construction to the Established Trees could include, but are not limited to, change in grade, mechanical damage, trenching, soil compaction, and pavement. Tree protection fencing will be installed around two coast live oaks, the off-site coast live oak, the olive tree, and the two Southern magnolia trees. Trunk protection will be installed on the coast live oak on the west side of the house. The project arborist will be present when any work is done within the dripline of the Established Trees.

Introduction
Background
Stephen Goei contacted JTL Consultants on March 13, 2020 requesting a Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino, CA 91108. Stephen plans to remodel and add 189 square feet onto the existing 2,428 square-foot house and 126 square-foot garage onto the existing 525 square-foot garage on the 13,657 square-foot property. The additions will not add any new encroachments into the driplines of the coast live oaks.The City of San Marino Preservation of Trees Ordinance defines an Established Tree as a tree that is at least fifteen feet in height and whose trunk diameter is at least six inches, when measured at a point four and one-half feet above natural grade. There are seven Established Trees on this property, and one tree on a neighboring property, that will be impacted by the construction. The Tree Protection Report is required by the City of San Marino to show how the seven Established Trees will be protected during the construction. JTL Consultants inspected the site and trees on April 1, 2020.

Assignment
A proposal signed by Stephen Goei on March 30, 2020 stated JTL Consultants will write a Tree Protection Report identifying all established trees on the property and showing how the trees to remain will be protected during construction.
1 Terms appearing in boldface type are defined in the Glossary.

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 2 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Limits of Assignment
This report is based solely on a visual inspection of the site and tree on April 1, 2020 and the review of the site plan provided by the architectural firm of Long A. Ha. The tree inspections were limited to ground level visual observations; neither root crown inspections nor aerial inspections were conducted.

Purpose and Use of the Report
The purpose of this report is to provide an accurate depiction of the Established Trees and show how six on-site trees and one off-site tree will be protected during construction. This report is intended to be used by Stephen Goei to follow the recommendations to protect the trees during construction. Upon submission, this report will become the property of Stephen Goei and its use will be at his discretion.

Observations
Site Description
The 13,657 square-foot lot is located at 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino, CA 91108. The property is oriented from northwest to southeast and is east of Los Robles Avenue, south of Monterey Road, west of El Molino Avenue, and north of Huntington Drive. There is a 2,228 square-foot two-story single-family home and a 525 square-foot detached garage on the property.

The home is in a residential neighborhood with homes of similar size. One coast live oak is between the west side of the house and the neighbor’s house. Two coast live oaks are in the backyard. One olive tree, one incense cedar, and two Southern magnolia trees are in the front yard. One coast live oak on the neighboring property to the west overhangs twenty feet into the backyard of this property. One of the coast live oaks in the backyard is behind the garage and has a canopy that extends from the west property line to the east property line. Trees 779, 781, and 782 have been removed. (Appendix A – Tree Location Map, Appendix B – Aerial Image, Appendix C – Photos, and Attachement – Site Plan).

Tree Descriptions
A metal tag with a tree number was attached to the trunk of each tree. The tree numbers appear on the following table, the Tree Location Map, the Aerial Image, in the Photos, and on the Site Plan. The off-site tree, OS-1, was not tagged and the trunk diameter was estimated, not measured.

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 3 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Tree # Name Photo Size Cond. Comments
777 Quercus
agrifolia
coast live oak
A DBH: 26”
Height: 50’
Width: 40’
Fair Dieback in upper canopy.

Growing into canopy of 778.

To remain and be protected.
778 Quercus
agrifolia
coast live oak
B DBH: 26” +37”
Height: 60’
Width: 70’
Good Codominant trunks.

Partially buried root crown.

No signs of recent pruning.

To remain and be protected.
780 Quercus
agrifolia
coast live oak
D DBH: 22”
Height: 45’
Width: 25’
Fair Limited growing space
between two houses.

No lower branches.

To remain and be protected.
783 Olea europaea
olive tree
G DBH:

7.5”+11”+12”
Height: 30’
Width: 25’
Fair Growing on property line
under a Jacaranda tree.

To remain and be protected.
784 Calocedrus
decurrens
incense cedar
H DBH: 42”
Height: 50’
Width: 30’
Poor Branches have been topped.

Sparse foliage in canopy.

To remain and be protected.
785 Magnolia
grandiflora
Southern
magnolia
I DBH: 12”
Height: 35’
Width: 30’
Fair Tip dieback in upper canopy.

To remain and be protected.
786 Magnolia
grandiflora
Southern
magnolia
J DBH: 12”
Height: 40’
Width: 30’
Poor Tip dieback in upper canopy.

Crowded by Jacaranda tree.

To remain and be protected.

OS-1 Quercus
agrifolia
coast live oak
D DBH: 30”
Height: 60’
Width: 60’
Good Canopy extends 20 feet onto
1408 Wilson Road property.

Lowest branch is 12 feet
above existing grade.

To be protected.

Discussion
Change in Grade
The grade will not be raised within the dripline of the Established Trees to remain.

The lowering or raising of the grade within the dripline can damage or kill a tree. The normal exchange of moisture and gases within the dripline is disrupted with the change in grade. The original grade should be maintained as far out from the trunk as possible. As little as four inches of soil placed over the root system can kill some species. The change in grade can have immediate or long-term adverse effects on the tree. (Matheny and Clark, 1998)

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 4 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Mechanical Damage
Mechanical damage could occur during construction to the Established Trees to remain.

Wounds to tree branches and trunks, caused by mechanical damage, may reduce tree stability by decreasing the wood strength, the internal movement of water and nutrients, and the ability to compartmentalize against decay. (Matheny, et al, 1998). Protecting the trees with protective fencing and/or trunk protection of 2” x 4” wood planks on a closed-cell foam pad (Fite, et al, 2008) or a heavy-duty quilted furniture pad, will help prevent damage from construction.

Trenching
No trenching will occur within the dripline of the Established Trees to remain.

Trenching within the dripline can damage the root system of a tree and lead to tree decline or death. Ninety percent of the fine roots that absorb water and minerals are found in the upper few inches of soil. Roots require space, air, and water, and grow best where these requirements are met, which is usually at or near the soil surface. (Fite, Kelby, and Smiley, 2008) Soil Compaction
There is potential for soil compaction caused by construction equipment, storage of building materials, and foot or vehicle traffic within the dripline of the Established Trees to remain.

Soil compaction occurs when the pore space between soil particles is greatly reduced. This causes the reduction of oxygen available to the roots and can lead to decline in trees. Use of equipment, grading, digging, and heavily used walking paths can cause soil compaction in a construction area. Use of protective fencing, mulching within the protective fencing, and limiting the amount of access routes will minimize soil compaction. (Fite, Kelby, and Smiley, 2008) Pavement
The existing concrete driveway within the dripline of Tree 780 and the off-site coast live oak will be replaced with pervious pavers.

Pavement restricts movement of water and air in the root zone. Surface barriers, such as concrete, can lead to water deficit. Water deficit occurs when water loss, transpiration, exceeds water supply, absorption. Water deficit can lead to reduction in growth rate, tip and branch dieback, and whole tree death (Costello, Hagen, and Jones, 2011). Pervious pavers allow water to percolate through the surface, for oxygen to exchange with the roots, and for roots and their supporting microbes to interact (Walker, 2013).

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 5 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Planting under Oaks
If there will be any landscaping under the coast live oaks, the plants need to be compatible with the oaks, requiring minimal summer watering. Lawn cannot be planted within the dripline of the coast live oaks.

The best treatment under oaks is a layer of organic mulch, not understory plants. If there is to be landscaping within the dripline of native oaks, the plants should have the same water requirements as the oaks, needing minimal summer watering. Plants requiring summer watering develop thick mats of roots that slow the exchange of air and water. Coast live oaks are susceptible to root rot if overwatered, especially during the summer months. (Costello, Hagen, and Jones, 2011)
Conclusion
Stephen Goei plans to remodel and enlarge an existing 2,428 square-foot house and a 525 square-foot garage square-foot property. JTL Consultants inspected the site and found there are seven Established Trees on this property, and one tree on a neighboring property, that will be impacted by the construction. The following recommendations are made to help minimize the impacts of the construction on the seven Established Trees.

Recommendations

1. Install protective fencing around Trees 777, 778, 783, 784, 785, 786, and OS-1 before construction begins, as shown on the Site Plan. The protective fencing will remain in place for the duration of the construction.
a. The fencing will be chain-link and will be at least five feet tall. The fence will be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least two feet at no more than ten feet spacing. Orange flexible fencing will not be used.
b. There will be no storage of building materials, waste, excess soil, and no digging, trenching, or other soil disturbance within the fence enclosure.

2. Apply a four to six-inch layer of mulch within the protective fencing of Trees 777, 778, 783, 784, 785, 786, and OS-1 and within the dripline of Tree 780.

3. Construct the new driveway with pervious pavers in the dripline of Tree 780 and OS-1.

4. Lawn will not be planted within the dripline of the coast live oaks.

5. The project arborist will be present when the protective fencing and trunk protection is installed, the mulch is applied and when any work takes place within the dripline of the Established Trees.

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 6 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Figure 1

6. Protect the lower 10 feet of the trunk of Tree 780 before construction begins by installing 2” x 4” wood planks on a closed-cell foam pad (Figure 1) (Fite, et al, 2008) or a heavyduty quilted furniture pad. Use straps or wire to bind the planks in place; do not fasten anything into the tree. This trunk protection will be kept in place throughout the project.

Glossary
Codominant Trunks: Forked trunks nearly the same size in diameter arising from a common junction
Compartmentalization: A natural process of defense in trees by which they wall off decay.

Condition: One of four possible “Condition” ratings
Good = no apparent defects or problems
Fair = minor defects or problems
Poor = major defects or problems
Dead = extreme defects or problems
DBH: The diameter of a trunk measured at standard height 4 ½ feet above ground.

Defect: An internal or external point of weakness which can reduce the stability of the tree and include cracks, splits, cankers, galls, girdling, codominant limbs, and wounds.

Dieback: Condition in which the branches in the tree crown die from the tips toward the main stem.

Dripline: The edge or perimeter of the canopy and represents a point where water will drip down to the ground and is an indicator of where the structural and lateral roots can be found.

Established Tree: According to the City of San Marino Tree Ordinance, an established tree in the front yard and side yard adjacent to a street, that is at least 15 feet in height and whose trunk is at least 36 inches or more in circumference when measured at a point four and one-half feet four and a

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 7 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
half inches above natural grade level and any tree in the rear yard and side yard not adjacent to a street, any woody plant that is at least 15 feet in height and whose trunk is at least 49 inches in circumference when measured at a point four and one-half feet above the natural grade level.

Root Crown: Area where the main roots join the trunk, usually at or near ground level.

Root Zone: The area of soil around a tree where roots are normally found. This area may extend up to three or more times the canopy radius of the tree, or several times its height.

Bibliography
Costello, Laurence R., Hagen, Bruce W., Jones, Katherine S., Oaks in the Urban Landscape:

Selection, Care, and Preservation, University of California, Agricultural and Natural Resources, Publication 3518, Richmond, CA 2011.

Fite, Kelby, and Smiley, Thomas E., Best Management Practices, Managing Trees During Construction, International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL 2008.

Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R., Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees during Land Development, International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL 1998.

Walker, Mark. “Are Pervious, Permeable, and Porous Really the Same?” Water Environment Foundation Storm Water Report website. Stormwater.wef.org/2013/10/pervious-permeableporous-really/ (as viewed on 8/30/2018).

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 8 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Appendix A – Tree Location Map

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 9 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Appendix B – Aerial Image

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 10 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Appendix C – Photos
A
B
Photo A, facing southeast,
showing Tree 777, as indicated
by yellow arrow.

Photo B, facing southeast,
showing Tree 778.

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 11 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
C
D
Photo C, facing northeast,
showing Tree 779.

This tree has been removed.

Photo D, facing northwest,
showing Trees 780 and OS-1.

OS-1
780

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 12 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
F
E
Photo E, facing north, showing
Tree 781.

This tree has been removed.

Photo F, facing northeast,
showing Tree 782.

This tree has been removed.

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 13 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
H
G
Photo G, facing northeast,
showing Tree 783.

Photo H, facing southeast,
showing Tree 784.
783

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 14 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
J
I
Photo I, facing northwest,
showing Tree 785.

Photo J, facing north, showing
Tree 786.

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 15 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Appendix D – Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

1. Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable.

2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible for the accuracy of information provided by others.

3. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.

4. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.

5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written consent of the consultant/appraiser.

6. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.

7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys.

8. The tree location(s) on the Tree Survey Map, the Aerial Image, and the Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan are not represented to be of survey quality but are sufficient to allow locating the tree in the field

9. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees or property in question may not arise in the future.

10. Unless specifically stated, Tree Risk Assessments were not conducted on the trees described in this report and JTL Consultants is not responsible for the consequences of any risk associated with the trees, either inferred or implied.

Tree Protection Report for 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino 16 JTL Consultants May 16, 2022
Appendix E – Certificate of Performance
We, Jeannine and Ted Lubeshkoff, certify:
 That we have personally inspected the tree(s) referred to in the report, and have stated our findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation is stated in the attached report;  That we have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
 That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are our own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts;
 That our analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboriculture practices;  That no one provided significant professional assistance to us, except as indicated within the report;
 That our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the results if the assignment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events.

I further certify that I, Jeannine Lubeshkoff, am Registered Consulting Arborist #500 with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and Certified Arborist WE-8445A with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the care and study of trees for over 20 years.

Signed Date 5/16/2022
I further certify that I, Ted Lubeshkoff, am Registered Consulting Arborist #513 with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and Certified Arborist WE-8446A with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the care and study of trees for over 25 years.

Signed Date 5/16/2022

7KLV6LWH3ODQLVDQDWWDFKPHQWWRD7UHH3URWHFWLRQ5HSRUW GDWHG0D\SUHSDUHGE\-7/&RQVXOWDQWV&RQVXOWLQJ$UERULVWV'XDUWH&$ 

-7/FRQVXOWDQWVFRP

777
778
OS-1
780
784
Tree Protection Fence
Trunk Protection

SITE PLAN

TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Isidro Figueroa, Community Development Director
BY: Camillia Martinez, Associate Planner
DATE: October 24, 2023
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. 21-25 & 21-73 APPROVAL AT 1408 WILSON AVENUE
FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY 418 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION. (SIGO GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC)

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Beautiful, Preserved, Single-Family Neighborhoods
Well-Maintained Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
This project continued from the Planning Commission Meeting on January 25, 2023.

The project went before the Design Review Committee (DRC) on October 19, 2022. The DRC voted (4-1) to approve the project with one condition of approval:
• The tree preservation plan must be strictly enforced with the supervision of the City's Urban Forester.

The neighbors appealed the project on November 3, 2022. The appeal is based on the following points:
• We feel strongly that the City must protect our native oaks and the urban forest as per the promise to do so
• Staff incorrectly supported this project without consideration • DRC Chair voted against the project in support of the community Kevin Cheng, Chair
Shelley Boyle, Vice Chair
Howard Brody, Commissioner
John Dustin, Commissioner
Jeri Wright, Commissioner

• Neighbors should receive staff reports for review prior to meetings. This is a flaw in the City's process
• This is not a neighbor but a developer who is continuing the tradition, sadly, of turning our residential neighborhoods into commercial districts • We hereby exercise our right to add additional arguments hereto See attachment #9 for the appellants' request for appeal.

DISCUSSION
The project involves the construction of a 287 square-foot one-story addition and a 131 square-foot second-story addition to an existing 2,522 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence. The project is located on a 13,657 squarefoot interior lot in the R-1 zone, Area District VII. The requires two design review actions pursuant to City Code Sections 23.15.03(A2)(A3). • DR 21-25
o An addition or alteration to an existing residential or commercial structure which: adds or expands a second story
• DR 21-73
o An addition or alteration to an existing residential or commercial structure which: Extends the length of any side of the primary residential structure or commercial structure by the greater of twenty five percent (25%) or ten feet (10').

The proposed exterior modifications include the introduction of a new doublegable perpendicular to the existing gable roof of the home, a new shed dormer, and the replacement of wood-siding with natural wood shingle cladding in a Mist Gray color.

The project includes the following proposal not subject to design review:
• A rear yard covered patio
• The replacement of composition shingle roof with CertainTeed Landmark TL composition shingle roofing material in the Shenandoah color • A 74 square-foot addition to the existing 525 square-foot 2-car garage for extra storage.

PROJECT HISTORY
November 17, 2021 – First public hearing before the DRC.

On November 17, 2021, the DRC reviewed and continued the proposed project to a date uncertain so the applicant could address comments made by the DRC. At the public hearing, the DRC requested the following changes (a

response as to how the applicant addressed the DRC comments is provided below the comments).
• More appropriate front window placement
o The proposed double hung window at the top of the proposed new gable was relocated to be in the center of the gable.
• Provide the parkway width on the plans
o The parkway is shown on the site plan as 12 feet.
• Oak Tree concerns with the proposed construction
o The arborist report was updated on May 16, 2022, and the licensed arborist's conclusion and recommendations found that the listed tree protection measures be implemented to minimize the impacts of the proposed construction.
• The proposed detached garage become an additional DRC action o The project incorporates a DRC action, DR 22-43 for an accessory structure visible from public view which exceeds six hundred (600) square feet in total lot coverage
• Consistent and accurate scope of work on the plans
o The project description has been updated to accurately reflect the scope of work
• Scale and massing
o The applicant has decided not to reduce the square footage of the proposal as they feel the proposed addition is not increasing the height of the existing structure and not increasing the width of the existing structure. Additionally, with the proposed additions, the total livable area will be smaller than the adjacent neighbors existing residences.

September 7, 2022 – Second public hearing before the DRC.

On September 7, 2022, the DRC reviewed and continued the proposed project to a date uncertain so the applicant could address comments made by the DRC. At the public hearing, the DRC requested the following changes (a response as to how the applicant addressed the DRC comments is provided below the comments).
• Concerns about the proposed size of the 3-car garage. o The garage addition has been reduced to only add 74 square feet for storage.
• The removal of the proposed awning design.
o The proposed awning has been removed and new wood trim around the door is being proposed.
• Eliminate one or both windows next to the chimney.

o The applicant has decided to keep both windows.
• Provide a change in the window type and style of the front windows to simulate an elongated design.
o The windows have been changed from double-hung to casement to provide an elongated design.

The previous plans provided for the September 7th, DRC meeting included an expansion of the existing 525 square-foot, 2-car garage with a 126 squarefoot addition for the structure to become a 3-car garage, which required a design review action (DRC 22-43) pursuant to City Code Sections 23.15.03(C).

The applicant has decided to reduce the garage addition to under the 600- square-foot threshold; therefore, the garage addition has become an administrative review and not an additional design review action.

October 19, 2022 – Third public hearing before the DRC.

The project went before the Design Review Committee (DRC) on October 19, 2022. The DRC voted (4-1) to approve the project with one condition of approval:
• The tree preservation plan must be strictly enforced with the supervision of the City's Urban Forester.

Please refer to the Projects Historical Records if you would like to review the previous DRC staff reports and project plans for the following:

1. Approved DRC Plans (From 10-19-22 DRC Meeting)

2. Staff Report from the 11-17-21 DRC Meeting

3. Staff Report from the 9-7-22 DRC Meeting

4. Staff Report from the 10-19-22 DRC Meeting

5. Staff Report from the 1-25-23 PC Meeting
As previously mentioned in the background section, the neighbors appealed the project on November 3, 2022. Please see attachment #8 for the appellants' request for appeal.

On January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission (Commission) reviewed and continued the proposed project to a date uncertain. At the public hearing, the PC requested the following changes (a response as to how the applicant addressed the PC comments is provided below).
• The project is not a Cape Cod style on the front façade. Cape Cod style needs to be more simplistic and not feature a double gable roof, as the current roof plan is too chaotic.

o The front roof design has been changed from a double gable to a single gable.
• Large shed dormers are found on Cape Cod styles. The proposed dormers should be broken up into 3 smaller dormers. There should not be a long stretch of windows in the dormers. You would typically see 3 separate shed dormers with the window frame being the exact size of the dormer shed. You would only have siding on the sides of the dormer, and there would be even spacing in between the dormers. Or you might see a single shed dormer as shown on the plans with windows evenly spaced across the shed.
o As proposed, the applicant has decided to keep the single dormer to the front facade. The applicant did change the window to be eveningly spaced and added wood singles to the sides.
• The other windows are odd shaped horizontal little windows that you would not see on a Cape Cod.
o The applicant has decided to keep the horizontal windows next to the chimney because they add to the interior design element of a bookcase/curio cases located next to the chimney. The proposed shutters are removed to provide a more simplistic appearance. • The exterior light fixtures are unsuitable for Cape Code and unshielded, creating a nuisance for the neighbors. The lights on the front façade serve no purpose and should be under the porch entry.
o The exterior light fixtures have been removed from the plans. • There is an inconsistency where the arborist report states no turf should be planted under the Oak tree, and the Landscape plan shows turf under the Oak Tree.
o The landscape plan under page L-2.01A has been updated to show bark under the Oak Tree.
• The side-facing elevations have no articulation and have too much solid massing.
o The proposal is to add 11 feet to the rear of the existing residence.

The applicant believes adding 11 feet to the existing structure and adding a wood shingle façade does not create a massing problem.

• The wood shingle siding should be throughout the home and not only on the front elevation.

o The applicant is now proposing to include wood shingles throughout the residence and detached garage.
• Story poles should be placed and that the rear yard can be available to be accessed.
o Staff previously stated to PC that story poles were not installed on the property. The applicant brought to our attention that they had previously installed story poles for the first DRC meeting on November 17, 2021. The applicant provided photos, as shown in attachment #11, and indicated that the previous story poles were up for one year.
o The applicant will arrange times for PC to visit the project site.

TREE PRESERVATION
There are no trees proposed to be removed as part of the scope of work. The Arborist Report (ATTACHMENT 6) recommends protective fencing around trees 777, 778, 783, 784, 785, 786, and OS-1 (located off-site) prior to the start of construction to remain in place for the duration of the construction.

HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
The subject property is not identified on the Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING
The project is for the construction of an approximately 418 square-foot, first and second-story addition to an existing approximately 2,522 square-foot, single-family home. Pursuant to Section 21084 of the California Public Resource Code, the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Sections 15301 and 15303, Class 1 and Class 3, and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.

NEIGHBOR APPROVAL/OBJECTION LETTERS
Approve – 3
Object – 2
No response – 6

DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 23.15.08, the San Marino City Code states that the DRC shall approve the application if it finds all of the following to be true:

1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the
neighborhood.

The existing two-story residence closely resembles a Cape Cod style home. The legal neighborhood is composed primarily of two-story homes in a variety of architectural styles including Craftsman, Minimal Traditional, and Colonial Revival. The project proposes a 418 squarefoot addition to the first and second-story of the home and exterior modifications. The exterior modification to the street-facing façade of the home includes the introduction of a new front-facing single gable, shutters, casement windows, and wood singles. The new front-facing gable will project approximately 4 feet from the existing façade and the shed dormer will be aligned with the windows found on the main body of the home. The proposed addition in the rear will create a new family room with 189 square feet of additional living area and a 319 squarefoot covered patio area.

The additions and introduction of the front-facing gable will maintain the architectural style of the home and break up the bulk of the steep roof that is currently visible. The new front-facing gable will articulate the façade while maintaining the overall massing of the home and will therefore be compatible with the neighborhood.

The existing wood siding is proposed to be removed and replaced with wood shingle cladding. Natural wood shingle is a common wall-cladding material found on Cape Cod style homes. The legal neighborhood exhibits a variety of natural wall cladding materials including brick and wood-siding. The change from wood-siding to wood shingle will be compatible with the natural cladding materials found throughout the neighborhood.

As such, this project meets this finding.

2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the
reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their property within the restrictions of this code.

Based on the project plans, the proposed addition in the rear will extend the footprint of the existing home by approximately 11 feet to the rear and will continue the same plate height of 8 feet 4 inches as the existing first floor. The adjacent property (1406 Wilson Ave.), nearest to the proposed first-floor addition is improved with a second-story home that extends approximately the same footprint as the proposed addition.

There is an existing large oak tree canopy between both neighbors which provides an additional privacy buffer. Based on the adjacent building's configuration and the location of the existing oak tree canopy, the addition is not anticipated to impact any adjacent neighbors' privacy.

The second-floor addition is only to the front of the house and will not produce an impact on privacy of any adjacent neighbors.

Therefore, this project meets this finding.

3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines.

The proposed front-facing gable will break up the expansive roof and maintain the same 12:12 roof pitch found along the front façade while the new gable dormer and rear yard addition will match the 3.75:12 roof pitch found on the back of the home. The rear elevation currently features a large second-story massing that appears top heavy. The proposed rear yard addition will provide balance to the rear façade and will be compatible with the existing building.

Therefore, this project meets this finding.

4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.

The project includes the removal of existing wood siding and installation of natural wood shingle in a Mist Gray color. This material will be applied consistently throughout the façade of the home. The proposed addition in the rear will feature La Habra stucco cladding, CertainTeed Landmark TL composition shingle roofing material in the Shenandoah color, and Pella Lifestyle aluminum-clad windows in a white color; these materials will be consistent and match the materials found on the home.

Therefore, this project meets this finding.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, (1) determine that based on the whole of the administrative record, that the proposed addition is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 & Class 3, and that there is no substantial evidence demonstrating an exception to the categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies; and (2) Find that the proposed project is compatible with the legal neighborhood and with the existing structure itself; and (3) Staff recommends approval of the project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Revised Plans

2. DRC Neighborhood Map

3. Neighborhood Input Letters

4. Arborist Report (Updated 5-16-22)

5. Appeal Documentation

6. Applicant’s Previous Story Pole Photos

1 RESOLUTION NO. R-24-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.

PCR 23-19, WHICH APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 21-25 AND DR 21-73, TO CONSTRUCT A 287 SQUARE-FOOT (SQ FT) ONE-STORY ADDITION AND A 131 SQ FT SECOND-STORY ADDITION, FOR THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1408 WILSON AVENUE, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 5323-018-033, CITY OF SAN MARINO
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2021, an application to construct an approximately 418 squarefoot, first and seconds-story addition, and front façade changes to the existing approximately 2,522 square-foot residence was duly filed by Sigo Group Management, LLC (Applicant), for the Property located at 1408 Wilson Avenue, San Marino, CA, 91108 (the Property),
WHEREAS, the Property is Zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential (Area District VII) and WHEREAS, the Property in question is legally described as follows:

LOT 2 OF TRACT No. 10800, IN THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said application was set and held before the Design Review Committee on November 17, 2021, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record.

WHEREAS, on November 17, 2021, the Design Review Committee deliberated the merits of the Project and made a Motion of Intent to Continue the Project, subject to the project changes, based on the provided comments at the meeting, and that the project be considered at a future Design Review Committee meeting; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said application was set and held before the Design Review Committee on September 7, 2022, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record.

WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the Design Review Committee deliberated the merits of the Project and made a Motion of Intent to Continue the Project, subject to the project changes, based on the provided comments at the meeting, and that the project be considered at a future Design Review Committee meeting; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said application was set and held before the Design Review Committee on October 19, 2022, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record.

WHEREAS, on October 19, 2022, the Design Review Committee reviewed all of the information provided in the staff report and considered the testimony given at the public hearings, including all written communications to the Design Review Committee, as well

2 as other pertinent information; and deliberated the merits of the Project; and Approved the Project.; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2022, an application to appeal the Design Review Committee’s decision was duly filed by Rebecca Hu and Cheng Family, the Jagles Family, Beatrice and Kenneth Li (Neighbors).

WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said appeal was set and held before the Planning Commission on January 25, 2023, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record.

WHEREAS, on January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission deliberated the merits of the Project and made a Motion of Intent to Continue the Project to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2023, during said public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated the merits of the Project and made a Motion of Intent to Approve the Project, subject to the preparation of a written Resolution of Approval to be considered at the next available Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2023, pursuant to the findings, the Planning Commission approved DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 21-25 and DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 21-73 subject to conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2023, an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission was duly filed by Rebecca Hu and Cheng Family, the Jagles Family, Beatrice and Kenneth Li (Neighbors); and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2024, a public hearing to consider said appeal was set and held before the City Council of the City of San Marino, and relevant testimony, evidence, and comments have been made a part of the record; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2024, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino reviewed all of the information provided in the staff reports and considered the testimony given, including all written communications to the Planning Commission, as well as other pertinent information; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2024, during said public hearing, the City Council of the City of San Marino deliberated the merits of the project, and affirmed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. PCR 23-19; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15301 & 15303, Class 1 & Class 3.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARINO does hereby find, determine and declare:

SECTION 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as part of this decision by this reference.

3 SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of San Marino makes the following findings for a second-story addition and removal of a window visible from the street for DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 21-25 and DR 21-73:

1. That the proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood, a. The existing two-story residence closely resembles a Cape Cod style home. The legal neighborhood is composed primarily of two-story homes in a variety of architectural styles, including Craftsman, Minimal Traditional, and Colonial Revival. The project proposes a 418 squarefoot addition to the first and second-story of the home and exterior modifications. The exterior modification to the street-facing façade of the home includes the introduction of a new front-facing single gable, shutters, casement windows, and wood singles. The new front-facing gable will project approximately 4 feet from the existing façade, and the shed dormer will be aligned with the windows found on the main body of the home. The proposed addition in the rear will create a new family room with 189 square feet of additional living area and a 319 squarefoot covered patio area.

The additions and introduction of the front-facing gable will maintain the architectural style of the home and break up the bulk of the steep roof that is currently visible. The new front-facing gable will articulate the façade while maintaining the overall massing of the home and will, therefore, be compatible with the neighborhood.

The existing wood siding is proposed to be removed and replaced with wood shingle cladding. Natural wood shingle is a common wallcladding material found on Cape Code style homes. The legal neighborhood exhibits a variety of natural wall cladding materials, including brick and wood-siding. The change from wood-siding to wood shingle will be compatible with the natural cladding materials found throughout the neighborhood.

As such, this project meets this finding.

2. That the proposed structure is designed and will be developed in a manner which balances the reasonable expectation of privacy of persons residing on contiguous properties with the reasonable expectations of the applicants to develop their Property within the restrictions of this Code, a. Based on the project plans, the proposed addition in the rear will extend the footprint of the existing home by approximately 11 feet to the rear and will continue the same plate height of 8 feet 4 inches as the existing first floor. The adjacent Property (1406 Wilson Ave.), nearest to the proposed first-floor addition, is improved with a second-story home that extends approximately the same footprint as the proposed addition.

4 There is an existing large oak tree canopy between both neighbors which provides an additional privacy buffer. Based on the adjacent building's configuration and the location of the existing oak tree canopy, the addition is not anticipated to impact any adjacent neighbors' privacy. The second-floor addition is only to the front of the house and will not produce an impact on the privacy of any adjacent neighbors.

Therefore, this project meets this finding.

3. In the case of a building addition, the proposal is compatible with the existing building which includes the rooflines,
a. The proposed front-facing gable will break up the expansive roof and maintain the same 12:12 roof pitch found along the front façade, while the new gable dormer and rear yard addition will match the 3.75:12 roof pitch found on the back of the home. The rear elevation currently features a large second-story massing that appears top-heavy. The proposed rear yard addition will provide balance to the rear façade and will be compatible with the existing building.

As such, this project meets this finding.

4. That the colors and materials are consistent and match the existing building or structure.
a. The project includes the removal of existing wood siding and the installation of a natural wood shingle in a Mist Gray color. This material will be applied consistently throughout the façade of the home. The proposed addition in the rear will feature La Habra stucco cladding, CertainTeed Landmark TL composition shingle roofing material in the Shenandoah color, and Pella Lifestyle aluminum-clad windows in a white color; these materials will be consistent and match the materials found on the home.

Therefore, this project meets this finding.

SECTION 3. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, IT IS RESOLVED that City Council of the City of San Marino hereby approves DESIGN REVIEW NO. DR 21-25 and DR 21-73 subject to conditions of approval.

SECTION 4. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Sections 15301 (Class 1) and 15303 (Class 3) and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies.

5 CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 14th day of Feburary, 2024.

STEVEN W. HUANG, DDS, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ALISON WALKER

CITY CLERK

EXHIBITS
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PCR 23-19 WITH

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF SAN MARINO )
I, ALISON WALKER, City Clerk of the City of San Marino, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. R-24-01 was adopted by the City Council of the City of San Marino at a Regular Adjourned Meeting held on the 14th day of February, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
________________________

ALISON WALKER

CITY CLERK

6 EXHIBIT A

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: Design Review No. DR 21-25 and DR 21-73
SUBJECT: Construct an approximately 418 square-foot, first and secondstory addition, and front façade changes APPLICANT: Sigo Group Management, LLC
LOCATION: 1408 Wilson Aveune
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.

APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (626) 300-0710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

A. General Requirements Completion Date

1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceeding against the City and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City, Planning Commission or City Council concerning this permit and the project. Such indemnification shall include damages, judgments, settlements, penalties, fines, defensive costs or expenses, including, but not limited to, interest, attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind related to or arising from such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit City from participating in a defense of any claim, action or ___/___/__

7 proceeding. The City shall have the option of coordinating the defense, including, but not limited to, choosing counsel for the defense at applicant’s expense.

2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. ___/___/__
B. Time Limits

1. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
___/___/__
C. Site Development

1. Prior to any use of the project site being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

2. The applicant will consult with City Staff to confirm an appropriate landscape plan to maintain the health of the existing oak trees to the rear of the Property.
___/___/___
___/___/___

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
BY: Amber Shah, Parks & Public Works Director
DATE: February 14, 2024
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE THE REVISED CITYWIDE TRAFFIC

CIRCULATION STUDY PREPARED BY ITERIS AND THE

TRAFFIC TASK FORCE REPORT, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF

TO BEGIN FURTHER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF

POTENTIAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT SAN

MARINO AVENUE/HUNTINGTON DRIVE, LOS ROBLES

AVENUE/MISSION STREET AND SIERRA MADRE

BOULEVARD/ROBLES AVENUE AND BEGIN
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “QUICK FIX”

CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
CITYWIDE.

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Safe Community

BACKGROUND
In 2019, the traffic engineers at Iteris were retained to complete a Citywide Traffic Circulation Study. The Study was presented to the Public Safety Commission in July 2021 for initial review and comment from the Commission as well as members of the public. The study was then forwarded to the City Council for review at its October 13, 2021, meeting. At that meeting, the City Council voted to remand the study to the Public Safety Commission in order for Iteris to complete additional tasks and revise the report. These tasks included improvement prioritization, near-term analysis, and collision data “hotspot” review. In November 2022, Iteris submitted a revised report, and presented it at the Public Safety Commission meeting on January 16, 2023.

Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member

Based upon the comments and feedback received at the meeting, Iteris made additional revisions to the report as presented at the March 20, 2023 meeting of the Public Safety Commission. At that meeting, the Public Safety Commission voted to forward the Citywide Traffic Circulation Study to the City Council with the recommendation to receive and file the report but take no action to implement any of Iteris’ recommended actions.

Concurrently, the San Marino Police Department assembled a Traffic Task Force and Chair Al Boegh of the Public Safety Commission was nominated and appointed to lead the Traffic Task Force at the December 19, 2022 Public Safety Commission meeting. The Traffic Task Force was created to review the Iteris Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, provide input on traffic hazards, and recommend traffic safety mitigation to the Public Safety Commission.

DISCUSSION
At the January 16, 2023 meeting of the Public Safety Commission, the revised draft Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, dated November 1, 2022, was presented by Iteris. Based upon comments and feedback received at the meeting, Iteris made some additional revisions to the report as presented at the March 20, 2023, meeting of the Public Safety Commission. The most significant change in the revised report, dated March 13, 2023, removed the recommendation from the original report to install a traffic signal at the intersection of San Marino Avenue and Lorain Road in response to public opposition to this recommendation. Other notable revisions to the report include:
• In Section 5.1 (Future Near-term Year Analysis), added “Future Nearterm Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS” (Figure 5) showing the AM/PM LOS of each intersection using a color code (where AM is the top half of the circle and PM is the bottom half).
• In Section 7.0 (Public Outreach), added a discussion of the San Marino Ave/Lorain Rd intersection being unfavorable to the community. • In Section 8.0 (Improvement Recommendations), removed the San Marino Ave/Lorain Rd recommendation.
• In Section 8.0 (Improvement Recommendations), at Sierra Madre Blvd/Robles Ave, two recommendation options are now provided. The first one is the original marked crosswalk with a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) option and the second is the traffic signal option.

• In Section 8.3 (Prioritization), added the Sierra Madre Blvd/Robles Ave option 2 (signal) to the table. Removed San Marino Ave/Lorain Rd. • In Section 9.3 (Toolbox Measures), added the high-level cost range for each toolbox measure, depicted by the number of dollars signs. • In Section 10 (Conclusions), added further results such as the Quick Fix considerations, etc.

The Commission voted to forward the Iteris report to the City Council with a recommendation to receive and file the report but take no action to implement any of the actions recommended by Iteris. The latest revised draft report, dated April 25, 2023, is included as Attachment 1. The only updates to the report since it was presented at the March 20, 2023 meeting of the Public Safety Commission were to include updated versions of the concept plans for Bedford/Huntington and San Marino/Huntington.

The Traffic Task Force assembled in December 2022, led by Chair Boegh, and comprised of members representing the San Marino Unified School District, City staff from the Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments, and members of the community, also independently reviewed the November 2022 draft report and its recommendations presented by Iteris at the January 16, 2023, meeting. The Traffic Task Force submitted a report evaluating the recommendations contained in Iteris’ draft report of its Citywide Traffic Circulation Study dated November 1, 2022, included as Attachment 2.

The Traffic Task Force report was reviewed by the Public Safety Commission at its March 20, 2023, meeting, in conjunction with the revised Iteris report.

The Commission also voted to forward the Task Force report to the City Council in conjunction with the Iteris report as receive and file. The only update to the report since it was presented at the March 20, 2023, meeting was to remove the review (and recommended rejection) of the traffic signal at the intersection of San Marino Avenue and Lorain Road to be consistent with the removal of this recommendation from the final draft of the Iteris report.

Staff concurs with the Public Safety Commission’s recommendation to receive and file the Citywide Traffic Circulation Study prepared by Iteris and the Traffic Task Force report. However, in conjunction with the Traffic Task Force’s thorough review of the Iteris report and subsequent development of recommendations, staff does not recommend taking no action to implement any of the recommendations in the Iteris report. Staff recommends the following in order to ensure the City has done its due diligence to consider and fully evaluate the recommendations of the Citywide Traffic Circulation Study and Traffic Task Force:

Improvement Recommendations:
• Bedford Road/Huntington Drive – Based upon FHWA (and Caltrans) guidelines, this location does not meet the criteria for installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). Staff does not recommend installation of RRFBs or any further review of this intersection at this time.
• San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive – Staff recommends further review of this intersection in order to complete the traffic analysis necessary to determine whether any of the recommended
improvements are warranted and/or if there are any other improvements that may be a better alternative for this location. Staff recommends the City’s on-call traffic engineers at Transtech complete this work.
• Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street – Staff recommends further review of this intersection in order to complete the traffic analysis necessary to determine whether any of the recommended improvements are warranted and/or if there are any other improvements that may be a better alternative for this location. Staff recommends the City’s on-call traffic engineers at Transtech complete this work.
• Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue – Staff does not recommend installation of RRFBs (Option 1) at this location. However, staff recommends further review of this intersection in order to complete the traffic analysis necessary to determine whether a traffic signal (Option 2) is warranted and/or if there are any other improvements that may be a better alternative for this location. Staff recommends the City’s oncall traffic engineers at Transtech complete this work.

Quick Fix Considerations:

A more appropriate characterization of the recommendations contained in this section of the Iteris report would be best practices and standard guidelines.

Staff recommends implementation of the following recommendations that will improve traffic safety citywide:
• Include all-red phase at all signalized intersections. • Install new Caltrans standard reflective back plates to all signal heads. • Adopt a retroreflective program for all regulatory signs consistent with Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
• Adopt a program that annually addresses the education component of traffic safety.

The remainder of the recommendations in this section have either already been addressed/implemented or are currently underway.

Traffic Calming Toolbox:

Separate from this report, staff had proposed and is currently working on the development of a Residential Streets Traffic Management Policy as part of the FY 23-24 Citywide Traffic Improvements Priority Initiative. Staff will take the recommendations in this section of the report into consideration for potential inclusion in the Policy, as appropriate.

In summary, staff recommends the City Council 1) receive and file the revised Citywide Traffic Circulation Study prepared by Iteris and the Traffic Task Force report, and 2) authorize staff to begin further review and analysis of potential intersection improvements at San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive, Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street and Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue and begin implementation of the “quick fix” considerations for the improvement of traffic safety citywide.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
The FY 23-24 approved budget includes $75,000 in account #394-48-4600- 0525 for the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Staff will utilize this budget to begin implementation of the “quick fix” considerations. Additional funding required in order to complete implementation of the “quick fix” considerations, and for the analysis of the potential intersection improvements will be requested as part of the FY 24-25 budget process.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends 1) the City Council receive and file the revised draft Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, dated April 25 2023, prepared by Iteris, and the Traffic Task Force report, and 2) authorize staff to begin further review and analysis of potential intersection improvements at San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive, Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street, and Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue, and begin implementation of the “quick fix” considerations for the improvement of traffic safety citywide. If the Council concurs with staff’s recommendation, an appropriate motion would be:

“I move to 1) Receive and file the Revised Citywide Traffic Circulation Study, dated April 25, 2023, prepared by Iteris, and the Traffic Task Force report, and 2) authorize staff to begin further review and analysis of potential intersection improvements at San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive, Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street, and Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue, and begin implementation of the “quick fix” considerations for the improvement of traffic safety citywide.”

ATTACHMENTS

1. Revised Citywide Traffic Circulation Study prepared by Iteris, dated April 25, 2023

2. Traffic Task Force Report on Iteris' Recommendations

Innovating Through Informatics™
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
DRAFT Report
April 25, 2023
Submitted to:

J# 10466| Prepared by Iteris, Inc.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................4

1.1 Study Area............................................................................................................................................4

2.0 Literature Review .....................................................................................................................................7

3.0 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Roadway Configurations...................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................................... 10

4.0 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology ..............................................................................................13

5.0 Traffic Analysis........................................................................................................................................15

5.1 Future Near‐term Year Analysis......................................................................................................... 18

6.0 Collision Evaluation ................................................................................................................................21

7.0 Public Outreach......................................................................................................................................24

8.0 Improvement Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 26

8.1 Operational Effects.............................................................................................................................33

8.2 Cost Estimates....................................................................................................................................33

8.3 Prioritization.......................................................................................................................................34

8.4 Quick‐fix Considerations .................................................................................................................... 36

9.0 Traffic Calming Toolbox.......................................................................................................................... 36

9.1 Traffic Calming Basics......................................................................................................................... 37

9.2 Process for Implementation............................................................................................................... 38

9.3 Toolbox Measures.............................................................................................................................. 42

10.0 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................55 Appendix A – Literature Review
Appendix B – Existing Traffic Count Data
Appendix C – LOS Calculation Sheets
Appendix D – SWITRS Data
Appendix E – Improvement Cost Estimates

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 3
TABLES
Table 1: Study Intersections..................................................................................................................................5 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service Definitions...............................................................................................14 Table 3: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service ..................................................................................15 Table 4: Future Near‐term Year Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service ..........................................................18 Table 5: Favorability of Intervention Type.......................................................................................................... 25 Table 6: Prioritization of Improvements............................................................................................................. 35 Table 7: Traffic Calming Request Scoring Evaluation..........................................................................................39

FIGURES
Figure 1 – Project Study Intersections.................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2 – Intersection Lane Configurations......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes...............................................................................12 Figure 4 – Existing Peak Hour LOS....................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5 – Future Near‐term Peak Hour LOS ...................................................................................................... 20 Figure 6 – Collision Hotspots .............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 7 – Circulation Improvement Locations................................................................................................... 27 Figure 8 – Conceptual Design Plan at Bedford Rd/Huntington Dr......................................................................28 Figure 9 – Conceptual Design Plan at Sierra Madre Blvd‐San Marino Ave/Huntington Dr ................................29 Figure 10 – Conceptual Design Plan at Los Robles Ave/Mission St ....................................................................31 Figure 11 ‐ Process for Implementation of Traffic Calming Measures ...............................................................41

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the San Marino Citywide Circulation Study isto utilize traffic data and community feedback to develop implementable safety and/or traffic calming improvements within the City. The City of San Marino is located approximately eight miles northeast of Downtown Los Angeles. The City is approximately 3.75 square miles in area and is bordered by the Cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, and San Gabriel, as well as unincorporated Los Angeles County neighborhoods.

This report provides a summary of existing transportation conditions within the City, a discussion of previous planning efforts, recommendations for circulation improvements, and a toolbox for traffic calming measures. The report includes key information regarding traffic volumes, roadway and traffic signal characteristics, a review of other relevant plans/studies, historical collision data, and analysis of current and future traffic operations during peak conditions.

1.1 Study Area
Based on discussions with City of San Marino staff,
the study area for analysis includes a combination
of signalized and stop‐controlled intersections.

The study intersections are illustrated in Figure 1
and are described in Table 1. The intersections
generally represent locations where traffic
congestion or safety may be a concern. Also
indicated in Table 1 are the traffic signal controller
types at the 15 signalized intersections within the
study area. All signals feature 170‐type
controllers, which is considered the most
common traffic signal controller type in Los
Angeles County.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 5
Table 1: Study Intersections
Intersection Traffic Control
1 Los Robles Ave/Mission St Signalized (Controller Type 170) 2 Los Robles Ave/Monterey Rd Signalized (Controller Type 170) 3 Los Robles Ave/Wilson Ave Signalized (Controller Type 170) 4 Los Robles Ave‐Atlantic Blvd/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 5 El Molino Ave/Mission St All‐way stop
6 El Molino Ave/Monterey Rd All‐way stop
7 Granada Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 8 Oak Knoll Ave/Monterey Rd All‐way stop
9 Oak Knoll Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 10 Saint Albans Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 11 St Albans Rd/Lorain Rd All‐way stop
12 Virginia Rd/Euston Rd All‐way stop
13 Virginia Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 14 Virginia Rd/Roanoke Rd All‐way stop
15 Virginia Rd/Lorain Rd All‐way stop
16 West Dr/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 17 Allen Ave/California Blvd Signalized (Controller Type 170) 18 Allen Ave/Orlando Rd All‐way stop
19 Oxford Rd/Euston Rd All‐way stop
20 Sierra Madre Blvd/California Blvd Signalized (Controller Type 170) 21 Sierra Madre Blvd/Lombardy Rd Two‐way stop
22 Sierra Madre Blvd/Robles Ave Two‐way stop
23 Sierra Madre Blvd/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 24 San Marino Ave/Lorain Rd All‐way stop
25 Winston Ave/California Blvd Two‐way stop
26 Winston Ave/Robles Ave All‐way stop
27 Del Mar Ave‐Winston Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 28 Del Mar Ave/Lorain Rd All‐way stop
29 Bradbury Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized (Controller Type 170) 30 San Gabriel Blvd/California Blvd Signalized (Controller Type 170)

301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino
Ave
Del Mar Ave
Lorain Rd
El Molino Ave
Legend
City Boundary
#1 Study Intersections
Parks
Figure 1
Study Intersections
N

NOT TO SCALE
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino Ave
Del Mar Ave
301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 7

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to understand the recent history of planning efforts in the region, Iteris obtained and reviewed several studies completed by the various jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region.  With the primary goal of this study being the identification of effective methods for the City to calm traffic at the neighborhood level, the review included traffic calming documentation, guidelines, and literature in order to set a baseline of available solutions and processes to discourage the intrusion and high speed of regional traffic onto local streets and encourage better and more efficient use of the transportation network for all users. The Literature Review memorandum is provided in Appendix A.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section presents an overview of the existing roadways within the study area, and the methodology used to determine existing traffic volumes.

3.1 Roadway Configurations
The existing configuration of the key roadways within the study area are described below:

Huntington Drive, oriented in a northeast‐southwest direction, is a six‐lane divided roadway, representing the major east‐west corridor through the City. Huntington Drive is designated as a Parkway in the current Circulation Element. The northeast‐ southwest travel lanes are separated by a 60 to 65‐foot median parkway. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Within the study area, Huntington Drive directly serves mostly commercial and institutional uses, though there are some residences with frontage (driveway access) on the roadway.

Sierra Madre Boulevard, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of two lanes in each direction north of Huntington Drive, and is designated as a Parkway in the current Circulation Element. The posted speed limit on Sierra Madre Boulevard is 35 miles per hour. South of Huntington Drive, the roadway is named San Marino Avenue, and is designated as a Collector in the current Circulation Element. San Marino Avenue is a two‐lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 8
San Gabriel Boulevard, oriented in a north‐south direction, is a four‐lane undivided roadway north of Huntington Drive and a four‐lane divided roadway (painted median) south of Huntington Drive. Running along the eastern border of the City, San Gabriel Boulevard serves residential uses and is designated as a Major Arterial in the current Circulation Element. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour.

California Boulevard, oriented in an east‐
west direction, is a two‐lane undivided
roadway west of Sierra Madre Boulevard
and is a two‐lane divided roadway (two‐
way left‐turn lane) east of Sierra Madre
Boulevard. California Boulevard is
designated as a Collector in the current
Circulation Element, with a posted speed
limit of 35 miles per hour.

Virginia Road, oriented in a north‐south
direction, is a two‐lane undivided roadway
serving residential uses as well as Lacy Park.

The roadway is designated as a Collector
between Lacy Park and Huntington Drive,
and as a Local Street everywhere else, in the
current Circulation Element. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. South of City limits, Virginia Road transitions to Alhambra Road which shifts to an east‐west orientation.

Los Robles Avenue, oriented in a north‐south direction, is a two‐lane undivided roadway within the City.

Los Robles Avenue is designated as a Collector in the current Circulation Element, and serves residential uses. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. South of City limits, Los Robles Avenue transitions to Atlantic Boulevard through the City of Alhambra and beyond.

Lorain Road, oriented in an east‐west direction, is a two‐lane undivided roadway running generally parallel to Huntington Drive. Lorain Road serves residential uses, with on‐street parking permitted, and is designated as a Local Street in the current Circulation Element, with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour.

Figure 2 shows the existing intersection lane configurations.

30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino Ave
Del Mar Ave
# Study Intersections
STOP Stop-control
Signalized
Legend
N

NOT TO SCALE
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Figure 2
Existing Lane Configurations
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

6. El Molino Ave /
Monterey Rd

7. Granada Ave /
Huntington Dr

2. Los Robles Ave /
Monterey Rd

3. Los Robles Ave /
Wilson Ave

5. El Molino Ave /
Mission St

1. Los Robles Ave /
Mission St

14. Virginia Rd /
Roanoke Rd

15. Virginia Rd /
Lorain Rd

10. Saint Albans Rd /
Huntington Dr

11. Saint Albans Rd /
Lorain Rd

13. Virginia Rd /
Huntington Dr

9. Oak Knoll Ave /
Huntington Dr

8. Oak Knoll Ave /
Monterey Rd

4. Los Robles Ave-Atlantic
Blvd / Huntington Dr

17. Allen Ave /
California Blvd

18. Allen Ave /
Orlando Rd

16. West Dr /
Huntington Dr

12. Virginia Rd /
Euston Rd

20. Sierra Madre Blvd /
California Blvd

21. Sierra Madre Blvd /
Lombardy Rd

19. Oxford Rd /
Euston Rd

23. Sierra Madre Blvd /
Huntington Dr

24. San Marino Ave /
Lorain Rd

22. Sierra Madre Blvd /
Robles Ave

26. Winston Ave /
Robles Ave

27. Del Mar Ave
- Winston / Huntington Dr

25. Winston Ave /
California Blvd

29. Bradbury Rd /
Huntington Dr

30. San Gabriel Ave /
California Blvd

28. Del Mar Ave /
Lorain Rd

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 10

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
As part of the City’s 2020 Engineering and Traffic Survey report (February 2020), average daily traffic (ADT) on City roadways was collected and compared to volumes from 2010. Based on the results of the data collection, the most utilized roadways in the City are:
 Huntington Drive: 40,000 vehicles per day (an increase of roughly 25% from 2010)  Sierra Madre Boulevard: 20,000 vehicles per day (an increase of roughly 27% from 2010)  Los Robles Avenue: 17,000 vehicles per day (an increase of roughly 23% from 2010)  California Boulevard: 13,700 vehicles per day (an increase of roughly 11% from 2010)  Garfield Avenue: 12,800 vehicles per day (an increase of roughly 14% from 2010)  San Marino Avenue 11,700 vehicles per day (an increase of roughly 31% from 2010)  Oak Knoll Avenue: 8,300 vehicles per day (an increase of roughly 8% from 2010) The full Citywide ADT map is provided in Appendix B, which includes both 2020 and 2010 ADT volumes.

Existing peak hour traffic volumes at the 30 intersections are based on vehicle turning movement counts conducted during a typical weekday in November 2019 during the a.m. (7:00 – 9:00) and p.m. (4:00 – 6:00) peak periods. The counts were collected prior to the Covid‐19 pandemic, thus are still considered to be valid for this analysis. The peak hour volume used in the analysis wasthe highestsingle hour of traffic during each of the peak periods. Detailed traffic count data are included in Appendix B. Figure 3 shows the existing peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Some key takeaways from the traffic count data are summarized as follows:
 Peak hour traffic volumes along
Huntington Drive are directional.

During the a.m. peak hour, the
westbound direction carries the
higher volume, approximately
1,800 to 1,900 vehicles(compared
to 1,200 to 1,400 vehicles in the
eastbound direction). During the
p.m. peak hour, the flow is
reversed, as the eastbound
direction carries the higher
volume, approximately 1,800 to
1,900 vehicles(compared to 1,400
to 1,500 vehicles in the
westbound direction).

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 11
 As expected, signalized intersections carry higher volumes than two‐way or all‐way stop‐ controlled intersections.
o The Los Robles Avenue‐Atlantic Boulevard/Huntington Drive intersection carries the highest volume of traffic in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. o The Sierra Madre Boulevard/Huntington Drive intersection carries the second highest volume of traffic in both the a.m.
and p.m. peak hour.
 Of the 12 all‐way stop‐controlled
intersections in the study area, the San
Marino Avenue/Lorain Road intersection
carries the highest volumes during both
the a.m. and p.m. peak hour.
 In addition to vehicle counts, pedestrian
counts were collected. Peak hour
pedestrian volumes are generally
minimal throughout the study area
(defined as a pedestrian hourly volume
count of 10 pedestrians or less at a given
crosswalk), with the exception of:
o Virginia Road/Euston Road
intersection (adjacent to Lacy Park) ‐ A count of 109 pedestrians crossing Virginia Road was recorded during the p.m. peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.). o Virginia Road/Huntington Drive intersection ‐ A count of 48 pedestrians crossing Virginia Road was recorded during the a.m. peak hour (7:30 to 8:30 a.m.), likely attributed to the proximity to Valentine Elementary School and Huntington Middle School. o Del Mar Avenue/Huntington Drive intersection  ‐  A count of 37 pedestrians crossing Huntington Drive was recorded during the a.m. peak hour (7:30 to 8:30 a.m.), likely attributed to the proximity to San Marino High School.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
30 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino Ave
Del Mar Ave
N

NOT TO SCALE
# Study Intersections
XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
Figure 3
Existing Volumes
24/24517/472
12/17
278/297
35/49
575/47186/74
511/6752/5
44/120
14/12
149/170442/222
177/194123/298
137/189
78/259
512/480
1480/866
45/44 43/34 53/38 46/83
8/8102/74
37/79
116/40
1253/1869
61/43
87/138
1741/1339
9/4
63/551026/75033/56
54/35696/91719/76
45/51
226/538
17/35
27/18
620/237
29/30
2/595/7854/70
54/8169/1497/23
98/79
68/68
2/8
18/17
121/66
0/3
135/48482/26527/69
470/440269/52978/186
474/431
868/1408
47/65
24/45
1275/983
65/57
12/31085/82317/14
1/4732/9591/0
16/18
39/15
36/18
109/62
8/1319/1224/16
3/45/35
2/7
261/603
24/56
4/22
654/300
3/2
21/12
54/97485/64218/38
54/81
165/383
11/9
40/20541/446
6/34
96/250
2/1322/23
23/21465/62310/4
22/43
219/330
4/24
544/417444/463
66/31436/70850/104
96/91
822/1561
2/9
39/44506/291
13/38
30/235
13/7821/15
33/25109/36364/82
64/42
171/268
17/46
244/64149/97
43/180
1840/1468
96/7478/76
7/2143/198112/134
27/23
1465/1850
47/73
24/19358/239
0/4
289/229
69/313/1
23/26194/38832/45
30/22
241/392
15/38
315/323
44/125
282/206
1315/1641
1769/1417
78/59 0/2
0/1
135/32227/64
20/20
1685/1377
21/1618/5
30/6647/16835/38
166/50
1189/1748
18/66
28/9273/82
2/3
91/41
74/125/2
5/540/19616/41
4/0
36/76
7/37
255/11117/35
78/28033/47
41/46
43/25
73/38214/93
115/56
1677/1353
57/39144/42
11/4265/286113/119
48/23
1159/1715
20/54
2/2414/175
14/682/384
18/4
7/5
5/2150/75
61/47
156/56
230/7743/82
11/642/14159/239
8/5
64/122
2/7
26/79146/267 35/7
690/346
48/286/40
61/56204/20632/46
52/62
296/713
39/33
3/3711/261
17/2
144/29
144/126 3/52
51/1998/40116/175
14/12
40/61
11/9
17/4
1093/832
4/5
14/5731/9109/49
0/10
19/41
3/16
17/5
76/14
56/13
99/37372/28080/33
37/34223/4368/10
57/42
152/269
46/200
32/75
327/151
70/13
142/6681/5169/54
8/2
44/163
3/3
2/1
11/16
5/9
53/135
36/18
1/1
74/33404/16984/108
38/33
79/230
55/104
77/50
839/1582
45/82
112/135
1330/854
121/65
46/19415/24239/14
15/45
164/374
22/56
60/42
17/46
116/231
19/14
318/128
116/23
117/3313/2
18/6
58/42
10/12
3/6
103/68
910/1705
21/27
18/30
1463/1052
2/0
154/791453/82020/44
25/37
657/1276
15/104
51/44
139/471
85/107
25/16
509/187

6. El Molino Ave /
Monterey Rd

7. Granada Ave /
Huntington Dr

2. Los Robles Ave /
Monterey Rd

3. Los Robles Ave /
Wilson Ave

5. El Molino Ave /
Mission St

1. Los Robles Ave /
Mission St

14. Virginia Rd /
Roanoke Rd

15. Virginia Rd /
Lorain Rd

10. Saint Albans Rd /
Huntington Dr

11. Saint Albans Rd /
Lorain Rd

13. Virginia Rd /
Huntington Dr

9. Oak Knoll Ave /
Huntington Dr

8. Oak Knoll Ave /
Monterey Rd

4. Los Robles-Atlantic Blvd
/Huntington Drive

17. Allen Ave /
California Blvd

18. Allen Ave /
Orlando Rd

16. West Dr /
Huntington Dr

12. Virginia Rd /
Euston Rd

20. Sierra Madre Blvd /
California Blvd

21. Sierra Madre Blvd /
Lombardy Rd

19. Oxford Rd /
Euston Rd

23. Sierra Madre Blvd /
Huntington Dr

24. San Marino Ave /
Lorain Rd

22. Sierra Madre Blvd /
Robles Ave

26. Winston Ave /
Robles Ave

27. Del Mar Ave-Winston
/Huntington Dr

25. Winston Ave /
California Blvd

29. Bradbury Rd /
Huntington Dr

30. San Gabriel Blvd /
California Blvd

28. Del Mar Ave /
Lorain Rd
160/52

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 13

4.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The quality of traffic operationsis characterized using the concept of level ofservice (LOS). Level ofservice is defined by a range of grades from A (best) to F (worst). At intersections, LOS “A” represents relatively free operating conditions with little or no delay. LOS “F” is characterized by extremely unstable flow conditions and severe congestion with volumes at or near the intersection’s design capacity. This results in long queues backing up from all approaches to intersections.

Analysis of traffic operations were conducted using the Synchro software, utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) delay methodology, which is described in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2000). Under the HCM
methodology, LOS at intersections is based
on the average delay experienced by
vehicles traveling through an intersection.

Table 1 presents a brief description of each
level of service letter grade, as well as the
range of delays associated with each grade
for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 14
Table 2: Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Level
Of
Service
Description
Signalized
Intersection Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
Unsignalized
Intersection Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
A
Excellent operation.  All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
< 10 < 10
B
Very good operation.  Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles.  This represents stable flow.  An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form.
>10 and < 20 >10 and < 15
C
Good operation.  Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 seconds, and back‐ups may develop behind turning vehicles.  Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
>20 and < 35 >15 and < 25
D
Fair operation.  Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks.  There are no long‐ standing traffic queues.
>35 and < 55 >25 and < 35
E
Poor operation.  Some long‐standing vehicular queues
develop on critical approaches to intersections.  Delays may be up to several minutes.
>55 and < 80 >35 and < 50
F
Forced flow.  Represents jammed conditions.  Backups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection
approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not
predictable.  Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. > 80 > 50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 15

5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
This section presents an evaluation of current and future citywide traffic conditions. A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate intersection operations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the study intersections.  The intersection analysis includes current signal timing parameters provided by the City. These parameters include cycle length, minimum green time, yellow and all‐red times, and pedestrian walk and flashing don’t walk times (where available). Phase timing splits are optimized in the Synchro software based on the traffic volume demand. Table 3 and Figure 4 summarize the existing LOS at the study intersections. LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C.

Table 3: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS
1 Los Robles Ave/Mission St Signalized 15.6 B 22.8 C
2 Los Robles Ave/Monterey Rd Signalized 12.6 B 17.3 B
3 Los Robles Ave/Wilson Ave Signalized 4.5 A 7.8 A
4 Los Robles Ave‐Atlantic Blvd/Huntington Dr Signalized 31.9 C 43.7 D 5 El Molino Ave/Mission St All‐way stop 24.1 C 25.6 D
6 El Molino Ave/Monterey Rd All‐way stop 30.6 D 97.6 F
7 Granada Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized 31.1 C 35.5 D
8 Oak Knoll Ave/Monterey Rd All‐way stop 28.8 D 68.4 F
9 Oak Knoll Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized 23.2 C 18.6 B
10 Saint Albans Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized 39.0 D 30.1 C 11 St Albans Rd/Lorain Rd All‐way stop 10.2 B 9.5 A
12 Virginia Rd/Euston Rd All‐way stop 9.1 A 10.5 B
13 Virginia Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized 37.4 D 32.0 C
14 Virginia Rd/Roanoke Rd All‐way stop 11.4 B 11.3 B
15 Virginia Rd/Lorain Rd All‐way stop 14.7 B 14.0 B
16 West Dr/Huntington Dr Signalized 50.0 D 51.0 D
17 Allen Ave/California Blvd Signalized 38.2 D 34.5 C
18 Allen Ave/Orlando Rd All‐way stop 10.7 B 12.3 B
19 Oxford Rd/Euston Rd All‐way stop 10.1 B 9.8 A
20 Sierra Madre Blvd/California Blvd Signalized 34.0 C 33.7 C 21 Sierra Madre Blvd/Lombardy Rd Two‐way stop >300* F 265.2* F 22 Sierra Madre Blvd/Robles Ave Two‐way stop 89.8* F 36.2* E 23 Sierra Madre Blvd/Huntington Dr Signalized 226.2 F 201.5 F 24 San Marino Ave/Lorain Rd All‐way stop 141.3 F 101.6 F

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 16
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS
25 Winston Ave/California Blvd Two‐way stop 18.7* C 23.6* C 26 Winston Ave/Robles Ave All‐way stop 9.9 A 9.5 A
27 Del Mar Ave‐Winston Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized 22.1 C 18.6 B 28 Del Mar Ave/Lorain Rd All‐way stop 69.6 F 28.5 D
29 Bradbury Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized 31.3 C 30.8 C
30 San Gabriel Blvd/California Blvd Signalized 41.0 D 37.6 D * Reporting the worst stop‐controlled approach delay
Notes:

LOS = Level of Service, s = seconds.

As shown in Table 3, the majority of intersections within the study area operate at generally acceptable conditions (LOS D or better). Of the locations that operate at LOS E or F, most of these are two‐way or all‐way stop‐controlled intersections. At two‐way stop‐controlled locations, the delay/LOS at the worst‐case stop‐controlled movement is presented, as opposed to an average of all vehicles
approaching the intersection. This method is applied since the use of an average would skew the results since the
majority of traffic through the intersection experience no delay (free‐flow conditions).

The signalized Sierra Madre Boulevard/Huntington Drive
intersection is currently operating at LOS F during the peak hours for vehicle operations. This is primarily due to the long pedestrian crossing times that are required in order to allow for pedestrian movements across Huntington Drive.  For example, the distance to cross Huntington Drive is 185 feet, which requires a
pedestrian crossing time of approximately 58 to 64
seconds (total of Walk phase and Flashing Don’t
Walk phase). As a result, the concurrent
northbound (San Marino Avenue) and southbound
(Sierra Madre Boulevard) vehicle phases run
longer than the vehicle demand necessitates when
a pedestrian phase is triggered. This results in
delays to the heavier eastbound and westbound
Huntington Drive movements. It should be noted,
though, that the volume of pedestrians at this
location is fairly minimal at this intersection (5 to 6 pedestrians along each north‐south crosswalk in
both a.m. and p.m. peak hours).

301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino
Ave
Del Mar Ave
Lorain Rd
El Molino Ave
Legend
X LOS A thru C

X LOS D

X LOS E

X LOS F
City Boundary
AM
PM Peak Hour LOS
Figure 4
Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS
N

NOT TO SCALE
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
C
C
A
A
C
C
C
C
B
A
B
C
A
A
C
B
B
A
A
B
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
F
D
D
D
C
D
C
D
D
F
C
D
D
F
D
C
D
C
D
D
D
C

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 18

5.1 Future Near‐term Year Analysis
This section consists of a future year analysis of the study area. The analysis is representative of a near‐ term condition, which istypically considered to be three to five yearsfrom an existing/base year condition.

In order to prepare the future near‐term year analysis, traffic volume growth in the area was reviewed using the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) travel‐demand model. Based on the review of roadway links in the City, comparing base year and future year model scenarios, the total average growth was derived to be approximately one to three percent. Table 4 and Figure 5 summarize the future near‐term year conditions LOS at the study intersections. LOS calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C.

Table 4: Future Near‐term Year Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS
1 Los Robles Ave/Mission St Signalized 15.8 B 23.9 C
2 Los Robles Ave/Monterey Rd Signalized 12.9 B 17.7 B
3 Los Robles Ave/Wilson Ave Signalized 4.6 A 8.0 A
4 Los Robles Ave‐Atlantic Blvd/Huntington Dr Signalized 32.8 C 46.7 D 5 El Molino Ave/Mission St All‐way stop 25.2 D 26.7 D
6 El Molino Ave/Monterey Rd All‐way stop 35.4 E 108.3 F 7 Granada Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized 32.7 C 38.0 D
8 Oak Knoll Ave/Monterey Rd All‐way stop 32.8 D 76.7 F
9 Oak Knoll Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized 23.7 C 18.9 B
10 Saint Albans Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized 39.9 D 30.5 C 11 St Albans Rd/Lorain Rd All‐way stop 10.3 B 9.6 A
12 Virginia Rd/Euston Rd All‐way stop 9.1 A 10.6 B
13 Virginia Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized 38.2 D 32.4 C
14 Virginia Rd/Roanoke Rd All‐way stop 11.6 B 11.4 B
15 Virginia Rd/Lorain Rd All‐way stop 15.2 C 14.4 B
16 West Dr/Huntington Dr Signalized 51.6 D 52.7 D
17 Allen Ave/California Blvd Signalized 39.5 D 35.6 D
18 Allen Ave/Orlando Rd All‐way stop 10.9 B 12.5 B
19 Oxford Rd/Euston Rd All‐way stop 10.2 B 9.9 A
20 Sierra Madre Blvd/California Blvd Signalized 35.4 D 35.0 D 21 Sierra Madre Blvd/Lombardy Rd Two‐way stop >300 F >300 F 22 Sierra Madre Blvd/Robles Ave Two‐way stop 118.4 F 41.5 E 23 Sierra Madre Blvd/Huntington Dr Signalized 238.2 F 215.2 F

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 19
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS
24 San Marino Ave/Lorain Rd All‐way stop 155.3 F 110.7 F 25 Winston Ave/California Blvd Two‐way stop 19.1 C 24.0 C 26 Winston Ave/Robles Ave All‐way stop 9.9 A 9.6 A
27 Del Mar Ave‐Winston Ave/Huntington Dr Signalized 22.5 C 18.9 B 28 Del Mar Ave/Lorain Rd All‐way stop 74.3 F 30.3 D
29 Bradbury Rd/Huntington Dr Signalized 31.5 C 31.0 C
30 San Gabriel Blvd/California Blvd Signalized 42.7 D 38.4 D * Reporting the worst stop‐controlled approach delay
Notes:

LOS = Level of Service, s = seconds.

Asshown in Table 4, the majority of intersections within the study area are forecast to continue to operate at generally acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) in future near‐term year conditions, despite average vehicle delays increasing due to the minimal growth in volume.

301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino
Ave
Del Mar Ave
Lorain Rd
El Molino Ave
Legend
X LOS A thru C

X LOS D

X LOS E

X LOS F
City Boundary
AM
PM Peak Hour LOS
Figure 5
Future Near-term Year Peak Hour Intersection LOS
N

NOT TO SCALE
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
C
B
C
C
A
A
C
C
D
D
B
A
B
C
A
A
C
B
B
A
A
B
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
F
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
E
F
C
D
D
F
D
C
D
C
D
D
D
D

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 21

6.0 COLLISION EVALUATION
This section presents a discussion of overall safety conditions using traffic collision data within the City of San Marino. Data was extracted from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (CHP SWITRS) from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2021. The locations and frequency of collisions are shown in Figure 6. As shown on the figure, while the data shows collisions have occurred throughout the City, the largest, most concentrated clusters of collisions have historically occurred along Huntington Drive in the vicinity of Sierra Madre Boulevard/San Marino Avenue. During the 10‐year period, a total of 599 collisions were recorded.

Further, the collision data was sorted in the following ways in order to adequately describe the safety conditions:
 Collisions by Severity (fatal, severe injury, etc.);
 Collisions by Type of Collision (rear‐end, broadside, head‐on, etc.); and  Collisions involving non‐motorized parties (pedestrians, bicycles).

In terms of collision severity, the breakdown of the categories is shown in the pie chart below. Two collisions of the 599 resulted in a fatality during the period. The majority of collisions (62%) resulted in minor injuries or complaint of pain. Only 4% of the total collisions resulted in severe injuries. A total of 805 injuries resulted from the 599 collisions.

301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino Ave
Del Mar Ave
Lorain Rd
El Molino Ave
Legend
City Boundary
#1 Study Intersections
Parks
1 3
6 10
14 20
Number of Collisions
Figure 6
Collisions Hotspots
N

NOT TO SCALE
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 23
The two most frequent types of collisions were Broadside and Rear End collisions. Other less frequent types of collisions were Sideswipe and Hit Object. The data for all collision type categories is displayed in the following bar chart.

Lastly, the majority of collisions occurred between passenger vehicles and other passenger vehicles.

Approximately 14% of collisions involved cyclists, 4% involved motorcycles, and 3% involved pedestrians.

Of the incidents that involved pedestrians, the most frequent violations recorded were where drivers failed to yield to a pedestrian within a crosswalk’s right‐of‐way. Detailed collision data from SWITRS is provided in Appendix D.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 24

7.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH
In Spring 2022, the City of San Marino engaged the local community through a survey questionnaire focused on where residents feel traffic safety issues are present. The survey was responded to by approximately 100 residents. The comments received ranged from requests for additional stop signs to traffic calming suggestions to reduce vehicle speeds and cut‐through traffic.

The most common locations cited in the survey were:
 San Marino Avenue/Lorain Road
 Belhaven Road/Huntington Drive
 San Gabriel Boulevard/Huntington Drive
 Virginia Road/Huntington Drive
 Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street
 Euclid Avenue/Mission Street
 West Drive/Sherwood Road

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 25
Respondents were asked to identify their most favored interventions to address the issues they experienced, with signage and vertical defection being the most favored and roadway narrowing and horizontal crosssection being the least favored.  In Table 5, the percentages are the percent marked under each type of intervention, therefore add up horizontally to 100 percent.

Table 5: Favorability of Intervention Type
Type of Intervention Yes No Not Sure
Signage 40% 35% 25%
Vertical Deflection 29% 44% 27%
Narrowing 18% 52% 30%
Horizontal Cross‐Sections 16% 56% 28%
The most favored specific interventions were:
 Warning Signs
 Speed Limit Signs and Striping
 High Visibility Crosswalks
 Speed Bumps/Tables
The least favored interventions were:
 Traffic Circles
 On‐Street Parking
 Diverters
 Curb Reduction Radius
 Curb Extensions
 Lane Narrowing
Lastly, an initial draft of this report was presented to the Public Safety Commission on January 16, 2023.

During that meeting, feedback from the community was received. In particular, the community voiced opposition to a previous recommendation for installation of a traffic signal at the San Marino Avenue/Lorain Road intersection. Thus, based on concurrence with the City, that recommendation has been removed from this version of the report. While a new traffic signal would reduce vehicle delay at the intersection, it could have the secondary impact of attracting more neighborhood cut‐through traffic.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 26

8.0 IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents an analysis of improvements to inform decision makers on opportunities for improved safety and mobility within the City. Utilizing the results of the traffic analysis and feedback from the community, contextsensitive circulation improvements were developed. The following improvements are recommended for consideration, with the locations shown in Figure 7:
 At the Bedford Road/Huntington Drive intersection, consider the installation of an unsignalized marked crosswalk across Huntington Drive, along the east leg of the intersection. The location of the marked crosswalk would be approximately 1,200 feet from the nearest marked crosswalk to the east, at San Marino Avenue, and approximately 700 feet from the nearest marked crosswalk to the west, at West Drive. This measure would provide enhanced pedestrian safety for pedestrians accessing commercial uses on the south side of Huntington Drive from residential areas north of Huntington Drive. As part of the improvement, it isrecommended that a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) control with a pedestrian push‐button be installed along with a curb extension or bulb‐out on the south side. RRFB’s are user‐actuated amber LED’s that can be manually activated by pedestrians using a push button.

A conceptual design plan of the marked crosswalk is shown in Figure 8. On the south side of the street, it is anticipated that up to two angled on‐street parking spaces would need to be removed to accommodate the new crosswalk. A similar traffic control configuration can be found along Huntington Drive, east of San Marino Avenue at the Ridgeway Road and Kenilworth Avenue intersections.
 At the San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive intersection, consider the construction of curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distances across Huntington Drive. This measure would allow for reallocation of the intersection’s signal timing by reducing the Flashing Don’t Walk phase required. As mentioned, a pedestrian crossing time of approximately 58 to 64 seconds is currently required to cross Huntington Drive. This measure would also enhance intersection safety by improving a driver’s awareness of a pedestrian that is waiting to cross or beginning to cross.

As an additional measure, re‐striping of the southbound approach to one right‐turn lane, one through lane, and one left‐turn lane (a reduction of one through lane) could accommodate additional southbound left‐turn storage while reducing to one through lane in advance of Huntington Drive—ratherthan a lane reduction, leading to merging of vehicles,south of Huntington Drive. The re‐stripe could potentially result in the “metering” of southbound approach traffic at the San Marino Avenue/Lorain Road intersection, asfewersouthbound vehicles would make it through the intersection per cycle. A conceptual design plan is shown in Figure 9.

1 Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino
Ave
Del Mar Ave
Lorain Rd
El Molino Ave
1 1
1 Legend
City Boundary
1 Improvement Locations
Parks
1 Figure 7
Improvement Measure Locations
N

NOT TO SCALE
Bedford Rd/Huntington Dr
Installation of an unsignalized
marked crosswalk
San Marino Ave/Huntington Dr
Construction of curb extensions &
SB Approach Lane Re-stripe
Los Robles Ave/Mission St
Construction of curb extensions
Sierra Madre Blvd/Robles Ave

1. Installation of an unsignalized
marked crosswalk; or

2. Installation of a signal
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino Ave
Del Mar Ave

Figure 8
Conceptual Design Plan at Bedford Rd/Huntington Dr
N

NOT TO SCALE
Source: David Evans and Associates
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino Ave
Del Mar Ave
301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1

Figure 9
Conceptual Design Plan at Sierra Madre Blvd-San Marino Ave/Huntington Dr N

NOT TO SCALE
Source: David Evans and Associates
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino Ave
Del Mar Ave
301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 30
 At the Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street
intersection, consider the construction of
curb extensions at the northwest corner, and
potentially northeast and southeast corners,
of the intersection to reduce pedestrian
crossing distances across both Los Robles
Avenue and Mission Street. The intersection
is skewed, resulting in longer crosswalks than
ifthe streetsintersected at a 90‐degree angle.

The north leg crosswalk is approximately 80
feet long and the west leg crosswalk is
approximately 88 feet long. The tight angle
formed by the two crosswalks is shown in the
adjacent photo (taken from the northwest
corner of the intersection). A conceptual
design plan of the curb extensions is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10
Conceptual Design Plan at Los Robles Ave/Mission St
N

NOT TO SCALE
Source: David Evans and Associates
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Los Robles Ave
California Blvd
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Monterey Rd
Sierra Madre Blvd
San Marino Ave
Del Mar Ave
301
291
281
271
261
251
24 23
221
211
201
19 18
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 32
 At the Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue
intersection, consider two potential options:

Option 1 is the installation of an unsignalized
marked crosswalk across Sierra Madre Boulevard,
along the north side of the intersection. As part of
the improvement, it is recommended that an
RRFB control with a pedestrian push‐button be
installed along with curb extensions for enhanced
visibility of pedestrians.

Option 2 is the installation of a traffic signal to
replace the current two‐way stop control. The
intersection is currently operating at LOS E and F
during peak hours, due to the delay at the westbound Robles Avenue stop‐controlled approach. The configuration/phasing of the signal would be similar to the Sierra Madre Boulevard/California Boulevard intersection to the north.
 The Huntington Drive/Los Robles Avenue /Garfield Avenue intersection cluster is being reviewed as part of the LA Metro SR‐710 Mobility Improvement Project.  Any modifications to that intersection cluster that would provide long‐term north/south mobility solutions would need to include a comprehensive and inclusive review of the roadways from Fair Oaks Avenue to Oak Knoll Avenue.

Los Robles Avenue provides one of the few north/south connections in the area due to Fair Oaks Avenue terminating at Huntington Drive and Garfield Avenue not crossing SR‐110. Therefore, while the slowing of traffic can be achieved through traffic calming interventions, it is unlikely that vehicle travel patterns would be altered unless a parallel route was operationally improved.  The Los Robles Avenue corridor was previously reviewed for neighborhood traffic calming as part of the City’s Circulation Element. The Phase 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans included recommendations for signal phasing modifications, new signage, and turning restrictions along Los Robles Avenue from the Pasadena border to Huntington Drive.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 33

8.1 Operational Effects
Each of the improvement measures would have potential effects on traffic operations, driver’stravel time, and/or the community. In some cases, the effects can be described quantitatively using standard analysis tools. In other cases, a qualitative assessment of potential effects in terms of safety and quality of life is more appropriate.

For example, the installation of marked crosswalks with an RRFB would provide traffic calming benefits along Huntington Drive and Sierra Madre Boulevard. Depending on the level of pedestrian activity at the new crosswalks, average speeds would decrease and travel times would increase along these corridors resulting in safety benefits. Though, quantifying these decreases and increases is difficult using traditional analysis tools.

With the addition of curb extensions, pedestrian crossing times would be reduced, which would lead to reduced vehicle delays at a traffic signal. At the San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive intersection, reducing the north‐south pedestrian crossing time across Huntington Drive would allow for signal timing adjustments that increase green time for the higher volume Huntington Drive movements (eastbound and westbound). Conversely, an extension of curb typically resultsin the removal of dedicated right‐turns.

This modification can result in increased vehicle delays, especially if right‐turn volumes are heavy. Another consideration is the Metro bus stop at the southeast corner of the intersection, and the removal or relocation of this bus stop.

In terms of travel‐time, given that the improvements would provide more benefits to safety and pedestrian flow, the effects on vehicle traffic time would be minimal.

8.2 Cost Estimates
This section presents planning‐level cost estimate ranges for each of the described circulation improvements. The estimates are presented from lowest cost to highest cost measures. The cost estimate calculations are provided in Appendix E.
 Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue intersection
o Option 1: Marked crosswalk: – $15,000 to $25,000
o Option 2: Traffic signal: $350,000 to $400,000
 Curb extensions at up to three corners of Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street intersection – $55,000 to $65,000
 Curb extensions at southwest and southeast corners of San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive intersection and re‐striping of southbound approach – $45,000 to $55,000  Marked crosswalk, with curb extensions, at Bedford Road/Huntington Drive intersection – $40,000 to $55,000

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 34
It is not anticipated that the recommended improvements would require acquisition of right‐of‐way (ROW). However, further studies are required in order to provide more detailed engineering‐level cost estimates.

8.3 Prioritization
The five improvement measures were prioritized/ranked based on their ability to meet the following set of goals, in order of highest “weight” to lowest:
 Provide safety benefits
 Address the desires of the community
 Minimize construction costs
 Improve vehicular circulation
The purpose of the scoring process is to provide the City with a high‐level ranking of the improvements, in order to move forward with implementation when funding is available. Each of the goals were “weighted” on a scale of 1 to 5, and then each improvement was given a score within each goal on a scale of 1 to 10, based on their ability to achieve that goal. Table 6 shows the scoring of the five measures.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc. | 35
Table 6: Prioritization of Improvements
Goal Weight
Bedford/ Huntington
marked crosswalk
San Marino/
Huntington curb
extension & re‐stripe
Los Robles/ Mission
curb extensions
Sierra Madre/ Robles
marked crosswalk
(Option 1)
Sierra Madre/ Robles
marked crosswalk
(Option 2)
Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Safety Benefits 5 5 25 7 35 7 35 5 25 7 35Public Support 5 6 30 8 40 6 30 6 30 6 30Construction Cost 4 5 20 4 16 3 12 7 28 1 4Vehicle Circulation 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 7 21 Total Value 81 97 83 89 90
Notes:Weight ranges from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important) Scores for each goal range from 1 (lowest in meeting goal) to 10 (highest in meeting goal) Rating = Score x Weight
As shown, the San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive improvement measures score highest in terms of meeting the goals, followed by the Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue option 2 (traffic signal) improvement measure.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 36

8.4 Quick‐fix Considerations
In addition to the specific improvements described, the City should consider implementing “quick‐fix” improvements to address safety citywide. These improvements should be considered:
 Include all‐red phase at all signalized intersections. This consideration allowsfor improved vehicle clearance times at the end of a signal phase before the next phase starts.  Install new Caltrans standard reflective back plates to all signal heads. These yellow reflective strips help to increase the visibility of a traffic signal head during morning or night, and particularly during a loss of power.
 Adopt a retroreflective program for all regulatory signs, consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD), to ensure that all signs meet minimum standards, with a priority on areas where collisions have occurred at night or early morning.  Adopt a program that annually addresses the education component of traffic safety  Update school safety Changeable Message Signs (CMS’s) that are currently in place  Adopt a program for regular Tree Maintenance, addressing clearances for traffic signage of trees within the public right‐of‐way
 Adopt City‐specific Stop Sign Warrant criteria consistent with the MUTCD. This criteria would consider the type of intersecting roadways, volume of traffic, and current delays experienced by vehicles along the stop‐controlled approaches.

9.0 TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
Traffic calming toolboxes are developed by communities that want to develop a process for identifying, addressing and monitoring excessive traffic speed or volume on streets not intended for non‐local traffic.

Generally, traffic calming is accomplished by encouraging slower speeds or diversion to higher‐capacity streets. This can be done through programs of education, citizen action and police intervention or infrastructure measures, collectively known as the “Three E’s”:
 Education – The process by which residents are informed of the appropriate tools to become active participants in addressing traffic issues affecting their neighborhood.  Enforcement – The action by local police to provide enforcement thatsupports the traffic calming recommendations developed by the community.
 Engineering – The use of engineering methods/best practicesto develop traffic calming strategies that address the issues brought forth by the community.

This section provides a discussion of the purpose of the program, basic terms/background, specific measures for use in San Marino, a proposed process by which citizens could request a measure for implementation, and a process for how City staff can evaluate a request.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 37

9.1 Traffic Calming Basics
This section defines traffic calming and offers some considerations when weighing options.

9.1.1 Definition/Purpose
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) definition of traffic calming is: ‘Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non‐motorized street users.” The purpose of traffic calming is to improve safety, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists, and to improve the environment or ‘livability” of streets for residents and visitors.

Non‐infrastructure treatments include education and enforcement actions—generally through the police department. Infrastructure interventions include street design treatments that notify drivers to reduce speed or deflect vehicle flow either vertically or horizontally to induce a reduction in speed. Some treatments are intended to improve driver behavior on the street or to discourage “cut‐through” drivers by increasing drive time along the street. By design, traffic calming treatments are self‐enforcing traffic management approaches that force motorists to alter their speed or direction of travel.

There is no standard formula for applying traffic calming. Measures employed in a given neighborhood depend entirely on staff expertise, the available budget, local conditions, and the mobility trade‐offs residents decide to make. But when applied correctly, traffic calming measures can have dramatic results.

9.1.2 Systemic Considerations
Too much traffic within a neighborhood typically is a problem of regional transportation connections and lack of alternative routes and modes of travel which causes a residential street to act as a neighborhood collector or a collector street to be used as a regional arterial. Cut‐through traffic can grow over time and need not be fundamentally a problem of the roadway network design, but generally is a result of congested through streets. While solutions addressing regional street congestion through signal coordination or major roadway improvement projects are options, they do not directly address localized traffic conditions.

Traffic calming treatments generally involve making the neighborhood streets less attractive to through traffic. The downside is that they also disproportionately affect the most common users of the roadway— its residents.  The cut‐through traffic problem needs to be weighed against the impacts on the neighbors.

Furthermore, diverting cut‐through traffic from one neighborhood street to another only transplants the issues. Speed lowering techniques tend to only work near the calming element, so they need to be repeated at regular intervals to calm traffic throughout the neighborhood.

Specific to the City of San Marino, wide streets can also lead to higher vehicle speeds, which lead to more cut‐through, as a result of drivers feeling more comfortable, as compared to narrower roads. Examples of this include streets such as Virginia Road, Monterey Road, and Shenandoah Road, where curb‐to‐curb widths are approximately 50 feet. In comparison, typical two‐lane localroadways with residential frontage

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 38
consist of curb‐to‐curb widths of approximately 40 feet.

The most effective traffic calming measures are
implemented to enhance safety rather than simply
divert traffic. Safety enhancements often have the
additional benefit of raising driver awareness and
slowing traffic. Effective traffic calming should be
designed with a systematic approach with appropriate
and frequent enough spacing of measures and
consideration for secondary effects of the
installations. A specific measure that the City
implemented over the past few years was the addition
of “Caution” signs along certain neighborhood streets,
shown in the attached photo. The City could consider
replacing these existing signs with a new standard
signage (adopted by City Council), specific to
neighborhood streets.

9.2 Process for Implementation
Traffic calming on San Marino streets is intended to engineer physical design elements to support enforcement and education efforts in reducing roadway speeds. A clear and consistent process for implementing traffic calming measures involves seven general steps, described as follows and depicted in the flow chart shown on Figure 11.

Step 1:  A Request to Review/Identification of a Location for Traffic Calming is Submitted to Public Works
A citizen‐elected official or staff member submits a request to review a location for potential traffic calming to Public Works Staff.

Step 2: Staff Evaluation
The Public Works Director/City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer reviews the request, and available volume, speed, and collision data for the roadway in question to determine the nature of the issue. Based on the results of the evaluation, the City Staff can make three decisions:
 No issue exists –no further action
 The issue poses an immediate safety risk – immediate implementation of safety countermeasure  The issue is appropriate for traffic calming – move to full evaluation Step 3:  Evaluation and Data Collection
If the issue is appropriate fortraffic calming, City staff may collect additional data to understand the details of the issue and to determine the nature of the problem. This data may include: traffic volume counts, speed survey data, accident history. An example of how staff could initially evaluate a traffic calming request is shown in Table 7, where a score is calculated for an individual request based on point values

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 39
related to key criteria. Four data‐driven criteria are used along with one qualitative criteria that applies engineering judgement (Public Works staff discretion).

Table 7: Traffic Calming Request Scoring Evaluation
Criteria Measurement / Source Max Score Scoring Method
Speed of traffic 85th Percentile Speed 2
85th speed 5 mph+ above speed limit = 2 points
85th speed 1‐5 mph above speed limit = 1 point
85th speed at or below speed limit = 0 points
Volume of traffic Average Daily Traffic 2
ADT above 5,000 = 2 points
ADT between 2,000‐5,000 = 1 point
ADT under 2,000 = 0 points
Accident history Police Department data 2
3 or more collisions per year over 3 years = 2 points
2 or less total collisions over 3 years = 1 point
Traffic Violation history Police Department data 2
Any traffic violations over 3 years = 2 points
No traffic violations over 3 years = 0 points
Public Works discretion  ‐  4
Scored based on City staff discretion to allow for
consideration of other issues that are not directly
addressed by the previous data‐driven criteria.

Total 12
This scoring method can be used for two purposes:

1. To determine whether a traffic calming request meets the minimum threshold for evaluation. For the purposes of this study, a minimum score of 4 points would qualify a request for further evaluation.

2. As a prioritization tool to determine where to focus first, if multiple traffic calming requests are submitted within a given timeframe.

Step 4:  Develop Goals and Objectives
City staff will arrange a meeting with interested stakeholders to:
 Inform the neighborhood residents and businesses to ensure that all stakeholders have their interests represented. The police department, Public Safety Commission and City Council will be informed of the meeting.
 Share the results of the data collection
 Familiarize the stakeholders with the City’s traffic calming toolbox and review potential solutions  To generate specific goals (overall vision for implementation) and objectives (measurable performance), and rank each in the order of importance

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 40
Step 5:  Action Plan
City staff shall select traffic calming measures from the traffic calming toolbox to target the traffic issue and account for the neighborhood input, land use context, traffic volumes, geometrics, and adjacent land uses of the traffic issue. Options include the previously mentioned 3 E’s: education, enforcement, and/or engineering measures.

City staff will notify the Public Safety Commission, and forward to City Council if additional funding appropriation is necessary, and present the action plan at a public meeting. If the majority of responses from affected neighbors are in favor of the plan, the plan will move to implementation. If the plan is not favored, the City Staff will revisit the goals and objectives and countermeasure development.

If the selected countermeasure is beyond the ability of the Public Works Department to fund under its annual budget, it will be placed in the annual Department budget request for the next fiscal year, and City staff will explore the application for competitive State or County grant programs.

Step 6:  Implementation
The project is implemented either as a short‐term or permanent measure.  Short‐term measures will be used if the efficacy of the traffic calming measure must be demonstrated or if limited funding requires interim improvements in advance of future funding to address immediate traffic calming needs.

Step 7: Monitoring
The project is monitored using the objectives developed in Step 4 to evaluate effectiveness.   If the implemented countermeasure project does not alleviate the identified issue or does not meet the project goals and objectives, the location will be reevaluated (Step 3) for additional safety countermeasures.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc. | 41
Figure 11 – Process for Implementation of Traffic Calming Measures

7. Monitor

6. Implement

5. Action Plan

4. Develop Goals and Objectives
Determine countermeasures

3. Evaluation, data collection if
necessary

2. Staff evaluation
Appeal 1. Request / Identification of issue
No further
Action
Immediate
Implementation
(if hazard)
Reported to Public
Safety Commission
If needed, funding
request to City Council
Issue Solved
If not
favored
Issue Not Solved

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 42

9.3 Toolbox Measures
The Toolbox Measures describe traffic calming treatments as a resource guide. There is no single tool to solve traffic issues and a treatment effective in one area may not be effective in another location under different conditions. Thistoolbox provides a listing of potential treatmentsto be considered when an issue is identified, which can be further refined under an engineering review. Traffic calming measures are organized as:
 Signage notifies drivers of changed conditions or are reminders to reduce speed or increase attentiveness;
 Road Narrowing Measures elicit a psychological sense of enclosure to discourage speed;  Vertical Measures use forces of acceleration to discourage speeding; and  Horizontal cross‐section Measures force drivers to reduce speeds by impeding straight through movements.

For each measure, a high‐level implementation cost range is provided as such:
 One dollar sign $ = Under $1,000
 Two dollar signs $$ = $1,000 to $5,000
 Three dollar signs $$$ = Over $5,000

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 43

9.3.1 Signage
Signage notifies drivers of changed conditions or are remindersto reduce speed or increase attentiveness.

Some examples of these measures are as follows:

Warning Signs   $ Traffic signs can be used to alert or inform motorists of a condition or a potential
situation. Signs need to be selected and placed
in accordance with the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  Pedestrian/
bicycles/school crossing signs and in‐street
pedestrian crossing signs have been used by
municipalities to warn motorists of high
pedestrian activity, and help to reduce speeds.

Signs are also used in conjunction with other
measures such as pavement markings.

Pros: Low cost and increases awareness
Cons: Can be considered to clutter the roadway
especially on residential streets. Overall
effectiveness can vary.

Turn Restrictions   $ Turn restrictions are a form of diverter where turns are necessary for the cut‐through route.

Signs and pavement markings are typically
ineffective without constant enforcement
unless there is some kind of physical change to
the intersection making the turn difficult. A
typical radius for a local street may be 20 feet,
but if the turn is prohibited the radius can be
reduced to practically zero.

Pro: Low cost, reduces cut‐through traffic
Cons: Inconveniences residents on streets, can
create more difficult traffic patterns, can be
hard to enforce, may cause cut through traffic
in other parts of neighborhood.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 44
Speed Limit Signs and Striping   $ Speed limit signs improve awareness of the appropriate maximum speed on a roadway.

Speed legends are pavement markings used to
inform drivers of the current speed limit.

Pros: With proper warning, vehicles are less
likely to exceed maximum speeds.

Cons: The pavement striping requires ongoing
maintenance.

Speed Feedback Signs   $ A Speed Feedback Sign combines the regulatory speed limit sign with a radar speed
feedback sign that displays the real‐time speed
of an approaching vehicle which tends to make
motorists reduce their speed.

Pros: Radar signs have proven to slow down
traffic, even years after their initial installation.

They are particularly effective on high volume
arterials and highways, where physical
measures would restrict traffic flow.

Cons: Installing these signs may be impacted by
the availability of a power source. They do not
slow traffic as much as physical measures.

Motorists’ compliance is voluntary. Signs
require long sight lines to be effective.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 45
High‐Visibility Crosswalks   $$ Ladder markings and defined crosswalk widths heighten awareness of pedestrian crossings.

Pros: Communicates to the pedestrian where
the preferred crossing is. Makes drivers aware
of pedestrian presence.

Cons: Does not accomplish traffic calming. May
give pedestrians false sense of safety. ADA
ramps must be present before a marked
crosswalk can be installed which can
significantly increase costs.

Gateway Signage Treatments   $$ A signing and/or landscaping treatment to alert motorists they are entering a special area can
be used at entrances to neighborhoods,
commercial areas, town centers, or busy places
of activity. Gateways are typically
supplemented with other traffic calming
measures.

Pros: Can be visually/aesthetically pleasing and
heighten awareness.

Cons: Generally expensive and can require
routine maintenance. Can be potentially
distracting to drivers and create potential
traffic problems.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 46
Flashing Beacons   $$ Flashing beacons can be installed to warn drivers of pedestrians at an uncontrolled crossing. A
push‐button would be included in order to
activate the flashing.

Pros: Driver awareness of pedestrians crossing is
increased, resulting in reduced vehicle speeds.

Cons: Additional pedestrian crossings could
result in increased vehicle delay and travel
time.

Pavement Markings/Stencils   $ Pavement markings are another means to alert or inform a motorist of a condition or a
potential situation. Painted lines and symbols
need to be selected and placed according to
MUTCD. Crosswalks can be used to alert
motorists of pedestrian activity. Pavement
markings are used in conjunction with signage
which increases the cost.

Pros: Low cost and easy to install. Can increase
awareness.

Cons: Low initial cost but requires regular
maintenance and may not be considered
aesthetically pleasing. They can be ignored by
motorists.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 47

9.3.2 Narrowing
Road Narrowing elicits a psychological sense of enclosure to discourage speed. As mentioned, some residential streets in San Marino are wider than typical residential streets, thus these types of treatments may be applicable. Some examples of these measures are as follows:

Striping Centerlines or Lanes   $$$ Many local residential streets do not have striped centerlines or delineation of lanes.

This lack of striping has the optical effect of
widening the roadway for drivers and
facilitate faster speeds.  The delineation of
these roadway elements help to direct drivers
to the true operations width available.

Lane Narrowing   $$$ Narrow lanes reduce speeds and minimize crashes on city streets by way of reducing the
right‐of‐way and making drivers wary of
traffic and adjacent users. The additional
space can be used for pedestrian space, cycle
facilities, or green infrastructure. Narrowing
traffic lanes differs from other road
treatments by making slower speeds seem
more natural to drivers and less of an artificial
imposition, as opposed to other physical
treatments that compel lower speeds or
restrict route choice.

Pros: Excess right‐of‐way can be shifted to
providing wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or
on‐street parking. Narrowing also facilitates
additional calming methods such as neck
downs and mid‐block bulb outs.

Cons: Narrowing without providing a shoulder
space can create conflicts for vehicles,
bicycles or parked vehicles.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 48
Road Diet   $$$ Reduces the number of travel lanes to
accommodate other modes and slow vehicle
speeds. This treatment is typically applied at
locations with four‐lanes of travel which have
relatively low daily traffic.

Pros: Repurposing travel lanes allows for
Improved pedestrian and bicycle safety (via
separated/striped bicycle lanes).

Cons: Reducing travel lanes results in
increased vehicle delay and travel time.

On‐street Parking   $$ On‐street Parking, both parallel and angled, helps to narrow roadways and calm traffic.

The proximity of parked vehicles and
necessity to watch for exiting vehicles and
opening doors slows traffic. Solid striping of
the outside lane helps to provide the
continuous road narrowing.

Pros: On‐street parking creates a buffer
between pedestrians and motorists,
improving the walking environment. On‐
street parking in front of businesses help
support access.

Cons: On‐street parking impedes traffic flow.

Parallel and angled parking creates more
right‐of‐way impacts. Drivers have reduced
visibility backing out of parking spots, posing
a greater risk to bicyclists.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 49
Curb Extension – Pinch Point or Choker   $$$ Pinchpoints or chokers are mid‐block curb extensions that restrict motorists from
operating at high speeds on local streets and
significantly expand the sidewalk realm for
pedestrians. Chokers can have the same
narrowing effect as parked vehicles on streets
where there is little or no on‐street parking.

Chokers can facilitate mid‐block pedestrian
crossings of low‐volume streets.

Pros: Can potentially slow traffic, reduce
turning speeds, and can enhance pedestrian
safety by reducing crossing distance.

Cons: Relatively high initial costs, loss of on‐
street parking, increased maintenance costs,
complicates street sweeping operations,
requires new and additional catch basins to
mitigate drainage.

Curb Extension – Bulb‐out/Gateway   $$$ Bulb‐outs or gateways can be applied to the mouth of an intersection. When installed at
the entrance to a residential or low speed
street, a curb extension is referred to as a
“gateway” treatment and is intended to mark
the transition to a slower speed street.  Curb
extensions increase the overall visibility of
pedestrians by aligning them with the parking
lane and reducing the crossing distance for
pedestrians.

Pros: Can potentially slow traffic, reduce
turning speeds, and can enhance pedestrian
safety by reducing crossing distance.

Cons: Relatively high initial costs, loss of on‐
street parking, increased maintenance costs,
complicates street sweeping operations,
requires new and additional catch basins to
mitigate drainage.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 50

9.3.3 Vertical Deflection
Vertical deflection creates a change in the height of the roadway which forces a motorist to slow down to maintain an acceptable level of comfort. Some examples of these measures are as follows:

Pavement Materials   $$$ Pavement appearance can be altered by unique treatments that add visual interest, such as
colored or pattern‐stamped asphalt, concrete,
or concrete pavers. It makes other traffic
calming techniques more noticeable to drivers.

Pedestrian crossings and intersections can be
painted to highlight crossing areas.

Pros: Colored pavements attract the driver’s
attention visually and physically. They are
permanent and effective and can add to the
aesthetic identity of a neighborhood.

Cons: Colored or stamped concrete is an
expensive option and can create some long‐
term problems as the pavement and concrete
settle differently and become a maintenance
issue.

Speed Bump / Hump  $$$ Speed humps are areas of pavement raised three inches in height over a minimum of 12
feet in length. Speed humps have pavement
markings, advisory signs and advanced warning
signs. They can be used on residential 2‐lane
local or minor neighborhood collector
roadways, with a maximum posted speed limit
of 30 mph. It may also be used to deter cut‐
through traffic.

Pros: Reduces vehicle speed, can reduce traffic
volumes, does not require parking removal.

Cons: May re‐direct traffic to other streets,
requires additional signage and striping,
increases noise, may delay emergency vehicles,
may cause street sweeping issues.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 51
Speed Cushions   $$ Speed cushions are similar to speed humps, but have wheel cut‐out openings to allow large
vehicles like buses to pass unaffected while
reducing car speeds.

Pros: Reduces vehicle speeds, can reduce traffic
volumes, preferred by larger vehicles, easy to
install, may be removed and reinstalled,
emergency vehicles can go by without delay.

Cons: May re‐direct traffic to other streets,
requires additional signage and striping,
increases noise, may result in street sweeping
issues.

Speed Tables   $$$ Speed tables are similar to speed humps, but have a flat top, typically 15 to 20 feet long.

When speed tables are combined with
pedestrian crossings, at the intersection or mid‐
block, they are called raised crossings.

Pros: Reduces speed, can reduce traffic
volumes, preferred by larger vehicles.

Cons: May re‐direct traffic to other streets,
requires additional signage and striping,
increases noise, may lose street parking, may
cause street sweeping and drainage issues.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 52
Raised Median   $$$ Medians are raised islands in the center of the roadway that separate traffic directions.

Medians are used on wide streets to narrow
the travel lanes and ease pedestrian crossings.

Pros: Landscaped or concrete islands and
medians can potentially reduce speeds by
narrowing drivable travel lane widths. They can
improve pedestrian accommodation by
providing a mid‐block pedestrian refuge at
crossings. They complement improved
crosswalks and reduce pedestrian crossing
width. They can be used to provide a visual
enhancement or gateway to promote
neighborhood identity.

Cons: May reduce parking and driveway access,
and also narrower road may increase motor
vehicle/bicycle conflicts, impedes left turns.

Raised Intersection / Crosswalk Refuge   $$$ Raised intersections create a safe, slow‐speed crossing and public space at minor
intersections. Similar to speed humps and other
vertical speed control elements, they reinforce
slow speeds and encourage motorists to yield
to pedestrians at the crosswalk.

Pros: Can dramatically improve pedestrian
safety. Cues drivers to expect crossing
pedestrians.

Cons: Without horizontal/vertical deflection or
signage, may have limited effectiveness.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 53

9.3.4 Horizontal Cross‐section
Horizontal cross‐section measures can have the effect of forcing drivers to reduce speeds by impeding straight through movements. Some examples of these measures are as follows:

Diverter   $$$ Diverters are raised areas placed across a four‐ way intersection that prohibit through
movements and force turns for approaches.

Diverters can be considered on local streets
where cut‐through traffic is a major problem. It
breaks up the street grid while maintaining
permeability for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Pros: Diverters limit access and reduce through
traffic without preventing pedestrian access.

They can also be designed to favor bicycle
travel, creating bicycle boulevards through
neighborhoods.

Cons: Diverters may create frustration for
motorists confused by the irregular traffic
pattern. They may impede transit and
emergency vehicle operations. The shift in
traffic patterns can have unintended
consequences, sending more traffic to other
nearby residential streets. Some diverters may
affect existing in‐street utilities, which may
increase costs.

Chicane   $$$ Chicanes create a curved street alignment that can be designed into new developments or
retrofitted in existing right‐of‐way. The
curvilinear alignment requires additional
maneuvering and shortens drivers’ sightlines,
resulting in lower overall speeds.

Pros: Reduced speeds increase safety, result in
lower severity collisions.

Cons: May reduce on‐street parking.

Maintenance would be required if landscaping
is added, thus increasing ongoing costs.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 54
Traffic Circles   $$$ Traffic circles are used to slow driving speeds approaching intersections. Motorists must
reduce speed to maneuver around the circle
which can help reduce the frequency and
severity of crashes as well as discourage
neighborhood cut through traffic.

Pros: Permanent installation forces reduced
speeds at subject intersection. Can provide
gateway or identity to a neighborhood.

Cons: A single traffic circle used in isolation will
not significantly calm traffic and can in fact
create another traffic problem on adjacent
intersections. A coordinated system of multiple
traffic circles or other calming measures is
required. Motorists may ignore painted traffic
circles, and drive over them. Raised traffic
circles need to be designed for emergency
vehicle access.

Curb Radius Reduction   $$$ Corner radii of intersection curbs are reduced, forcing turning vehicles to slow down. Efforts to
accommodate trucks and other large vehicles
have historically led to increased corner radii at
intersections.

Pro: Can result in increased safety for
pedestrians by reducing crossing distances and
slowing the speed of turning vehicles.

Con: May result in wide swings in turning
movements of large vehicles.

City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Draft Report
Iteris, Inc.  | 55

10.0 CONCLUSIONS
Thisreport provides a summary of existing and near‐term future transportation conditions within the City, a discussion of previous planning efforts, recommendations for circulation/safety improvements, and a toolbox for traffic calming measures. The circulation network for analysis includes a combination of signalized and stop‐controlled intersections.

New traffic counts were collected at 30 intersections during a typical weekday in November 2019, prior to the Covid‐19 pandemic. Huntington Drive is the City’s major thoroughfare, and peak hour traffic volumes along Huntington Drive are directional. During the a.m. peak hour, the westbound direction carries the higher volume, approximately 1,800 to 1,900 vehicles (compared to 1,200 to 1,400 vehicles in the eastbound direction). During the p.m. peak hour, the flow is reversed, as the eastbound direction carries the higher volume, approximately 1,800 to 1,900 vehicles (compared to 1,400 to 1,500 vehicles in the westbound direction).

The following improvements are recommended for consideration:
 At the Bedford Road/Huntington Drive intersection, consider the installation of an unsignalized marked crosswalk across Huntington Drive, along the east leg of the intersection.  At the San Marino Avenue/Huntington Drive intersection, consider the construction of curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distances across Huntington Drive, as well as a re‐stripe of southbound approach lanes.
 At the Los Robles Avenue/Mission Street intersection, consider the construction of curb extensions at the northwest corner, and potentially northeast and southeast corners, of the intersection to reduce pedestrian crossing distances across both Los Robles Avenue and Mission Street.
 At the Sierra Madre Boulevard/Robles Avenue intersection, two potential options are recommended, 1) consider the installation of an unsignalized marked crosswalk across Sierra Madre Boulevard, along the north side of the intersection, 2) consider the installation of a traffic signal.

In addition to the specific improvements described, potential “quick‐fix” improvements to address safety citywide are recommended, which include all‐red phasing at allsignalized intersections, installing Caltrans standard reflective back plates to all signal heads, and adopting a Stop Sign Warrant, among other measures.

Lastly, a Traffic Calming Toolbox is presented, which included a discussion of the purpose of the program, basic terms/background, specific measures for use in San Marino, a proposed process by which citizens could request a measure for implementation, and a process for how City staff can evaluate a request.

Innovating Through Informatics™
City of San Marino
Citywide Traffic Circulation Study
Technical Appendix
Submitted to:

J# 10466| Prepared by Iteris, Inc.

Innovating Through Informatics™
APPENDIX A – LITERATURE REVIEW

Iteris, Inc.| 1

MEMORANDUM
To: City of San Marino From: Iteris, Inc.

Date: March 7, 2023
RE: San Marino Citywide Circulation Study – Literature and Traffic Calming Toolbox Review Summary
Iteris is preparing the San Marino Citywide Circulation Study for the City of San Marino. In order to understand the recent history of planning efforts in the region, Iteris obtained and reviewed several studies completed by the various jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. This memorandum summarizes the key takeaways, and relevancy to Iteris’ study, from these approved studies. The summary was prepared through review of the following documents (categorized by responsible jurisdiction or entity):
 City of San Marino
o City of San Marino General Plan;
o City of San Marino Circulation Element;
o Huntington Drive Safe Street Corridor Plan;
o Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (1995);
o Northwest Area Initial Traffic Calming Plan Review;
o Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2014);
o Commercial Design Guidelines (1998); and
o Traffic Circulation Review for Carver Elementary School, Valentine Elementary School, Huntington Middle School, and San Marino High School.
 Neighboring Cities
o City of Pasadena Mobility Element;
o City of Alhambra;
o San Gabriel Comprehensive General Plan; and
o San Gabriel Valley Regional Bicycle Master Plan.
 Regional Plans
o SCAG Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy; o Los Angeles County Bicycle Master Plan (2012);
o Los Angeles Metro NextGen Bus Study; and
o Measure R: Los Angeles County’s Measure R sales tax measure.

Iteris, Inc.| 2
Iteris also compared the San Marino Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan to the traffic calming toolboxes of three other cities: San Anselmo, La Mesa and Hayward. In addition, three comprehensive toolboxes prepared by other organizations were also reviewed for completeness of the listing of potential traffic calming measures, as well as two other documents providing traffic calming/safety guidance:

National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide https://nacto.org/publication/urban‐street‐design‐guide/ Project for Public Spaces Traffic Calming Toolbox
https://www.pps.org/article/livememtraffic
Los Angeles County Model Design Manual for Living Streets http://www.modelstreetdesignmanual.com/chapters.html
Caltrans Traffic Calming Guidance (January 28, 2022)
https://dot.ca.gov/‐/media/dot‐media/programs/safety‐programs/documents/policy/memo‐traffic‐ claming‐guidance‐1‐28‐22‐
a11y.pdf#:~:text=The%20California%20Department%20of%20Transportation%20%28Caltrans%29% 20recognizes%20all,used%20with%20the%20intent%20to%20slow%20speeding%20vehicles.

FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Locations https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022‐ 07/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3‐2018_07_17‐508compliant.pdf

Iteris, Inc.| 3

CITY OF SAN MARINO REVIEW
This section presents the key takeaways from the review of City of San Marino approved studies.

Table 1 –City of San Marino Study Review
Study Conclusions / Key Takeaways
City of San Marino General Plan
 The 2003 General Plan includes updates in the
land use, open space, conservation, safety, and
noise elements.
 Circulation Element was not updated in the
2003 General Plan update.

City of San Marino Circulation Element  Latest Circulation Element was adopted in 1995 as a separate document from the General Plan
update.
 The following are included in the Circulation
Element:
o Transportation setting
o Goals and objectives for
transportation
o Plans for the future and the
Circulation Plan of entry points into
the City
o Functional classification of roadways
o Neighborhood traffic control plans
o Public transportation
o Non‐motorized transportation parking
o Truck routes
o Transportation demand management
and public utilities
o Future transportation improvements
Huntington Drive Safe Street Corridor Plan  With a Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, the study provides a vision for the 2.5‐
mile section of Huntington Drive in the City to
identify policies, projects, and/or programs to
ensure the corridor functions safely and
effectively.
 Corridor issues identified by the Plan:
o Northbound and southbound left‐turn
interlock
o Lengthy pedestrian crossings
o Limitations to north‐south movement
o Narrow sidewalks
o High vehicular speeds

Iteris, Inc.| 4
Study Conclusions / Key Takeaways
o Excessive number of lanes
o Angle parking maneuvers
o Bicycle access deficiencies
 General recommendations from the Plan:
o Widening sidewalks
o Reduction of travel lane widths
o Traffic signal cycle adjustments
o Striping adjustments
o Specific improvements at intersections
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (1995)  The Plan was prepared concurrently with the Circulation Element and outlined options for
traffic calming with specific recommendations.
 Received community inputs from 15 residents,
West San Marino Neighborhood Meetings, and
meetings in adjacent jurisdictions.
 Developed neighborhood traffic control
installation guidelines and example
interventions.

Northwest Area Initial Traffic Calming Plan Review  Traffic calming plan for four streets:
o Garfield Boulevard
o Oak Knoll Avenue
o Los Robles Avenue
o El Molino Avenue
 Recommends a formal citywide traffic calming
policy to guide a master traffic calming plan to
advanced (infrastructure) measures in order to
shift non‐local regional traffic to appropriate
streets within the City and adjacent cities.
 The Plan derives from:
o Los Robles Avenue Traffic Collision
Study and traffic calming measures in
2007
o Oak Knoll Avenue Traffic Circulation
Study in 2009
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2014)  The Plan provides a framework to improve conditions for cycling and walking and create a
list of projects for implementation to assist the
City in becoming eligible for more funding.
 The Plan also proposed a list of projects and
programs, creating a bikeway network within
the City that would provide high‐priority links to
key activity centers.

Commercial Design Guidelines (1998)  The guidelines provide a clear and concise summary of the City’s design policies and
requirements for projects located in commercial
areas.

Iteris, Inc.| 5
Study Conclusions / Key Takeaways
 The guidelines ensure that there is a level of
consistency in the building design with the
adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Traffic Circulation Review for Carver Elementary
School, Valentine Elementary School, Huntington
Middle School, and San Marino High School
 The traffic circulation review was submitted to
the City on September 10, 2018.
 Derived from the Albert Grover and Associates
Traffic Circulation Review.
 Assessed existing conditions around the schools.
 Documented field reviews.
 Examined area transportation conditions.
 Made recommendations for improvements on
school grounds and in the public right of way.

Iteris, Inc.| 6

NEIGHBORING CITIES REVIEW
This section presents the key takeaways from the review of approved studies of neighboring cities of San Marino.

Table 2 – Neighboring Cities Review
Study Conclusions / Key Takeaways
City of Pasadena Mobility Element
 The Element envisions a transportation policy
and sets forth a Guiding Principle that views
Pasadena as “a community where people can
circulate without cars”.
 Relies on an integrated and multimodal
transportation system that provides choices and
accessibility for everyone living and working in
the City.
 Key strategies to achieve this vision included:
o Non‐auto travel including public
transit services
o Parking strategies
o Bicycle facilities
o Car‐sharing programs
o Pedestrian components that are well
coordinated and connected with a
larger regional transportation system
 Policy 1.13 implements traffic measures
developed through the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program (NTMP) to control the
speed and volume of traffic to reduce traffic
impacts.
 Oak Knoll Avenue in the northwest and Sierra
Madre Boulevard and San Gabriel Boulevard in
the north are classified as Connector‐City.
 El Molino Avenue, Los Robles Avenue and
Marengo Avenue in the northwest and Allen
Avenue and San Marino Avenue in the north are
classified as Connector‐Neighborhood.
 The City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program relies heavily on concurrence between
neighborhood organizations and their
respective City Council Districts to identify the
boundaries of each NTMP.

City of Alhambra – General Plan Update (2019)  The Mobility Element classifies Granada Avenue and Alhambra Road as secondary arterials,
Almansor Street as a collector, and Garfield
Avenue and Huntington Drive as major arterials.

San Gabriel Comprehensive General Plan (2005)  The Plan classifies Alhambra Road and N.

Mission Drive as collector streets, San Marino
and Del Mar Avenue as limited secondary
arterials and San Gabriel Boulevard as four‐lane
boulevard.

Iteris, Inc.| 7

REGIONAL AGENCIES REVIEW
This section presents the key takeaways from the review of approved studies from regional agencies.

Table 3 – Regional Agencies Review
Study Conclusions / Key Takeaways
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable
Communities Strategy
 The Plan balances future mobility and housing
needs with economic, environmental, and
public health goals.
 The only project specifically in San Marino listed
in the RTP/SCS is:
o Huntington Drive Multimodal Capacity
Enhancements

1. Construct a second left‐turn
lane at the 2 intersections at
San Marino Avenue and San
Gabriel Boulevard
(Eastbound on Huntington
Drive and Northbound on
San Marino Avenue and San
Gabriel Boulevard).

2. Modify signal timing to
shorten the left‐turn
movement on Huntington
Drive.

3. Extend sidewalks and
enhance pedestrian
facilities.

Los Angeles County Bicycle Master Plan (2012)  The Plan includes a proposal to add bicycle lanes to Huntington Drive in the East San Gabriel
unincorporated area.

Los Angeles Metro NextGen Bus Study  The study combines technical analysis and comments from nearly 20,000 County residents.
 The Regional Service Concept is guiding the
NextGen bus service planners as they examine
every Metro bus line and bus stop to determine
the best system redesign possible.
 As part of NextGen, a comprehensive update to
the agency’s bus network will be enacted over
the next few years.

Measure R: Los Angeles County’s Measure R sales
tax measure
 Contains seven identified projects in the City of
San Marino as part of the I‐710 North Corridor
Mobility Improvements
 See Table 4 for list of the seven projects

Iteris, Inc.| 8
Table 4 – City of San Marino: Measure R Projects
Local Street Intersection Improvement Projects
14   San Marino   Huntington Drive Intersection Capacity Improvements [4 intersections from Atlantic Boulevard to San Gabriel Boulevard]   $12,000,000 15   San Marino   Huntington Drive Capacity Enhancements [Segments between Virginia Road and Sunnyslope Drive]   $6,000,000 16   San Marino   Sierra Madre Boulevard Corridor Capacity Improvements [between Huntington Drive and Del Mar Boulevard]   $4,000,000 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Projects
65   San Marino   Huntington Drive Traffic Signal Synchronization Project   $7,000,000 66   San Marino   San Gabriel Boulevard Traffic Signal Synchronization Project   $3,000,000 Active Transportation Projects
10   San Marino   Del Mar Avenue Complete Street Improvements   $2,000,000 11   San Marino   Huntington Drive Complete Street Improvements   $2,000,000 Note: Numbering follows the ID #s from the November 2018 Metro Board Report Of the projects listed above, two are actively being refined and pursued by the City per the July 10 and July 26 City Council meetings: Improve traffic flow with public input at intersection of Atlantic Boulevard/Huntington Drive/Los Robles Avenue/Garfield Avenue for $8 million and Huntington Drive improvements near school sites for $6 million.

TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX REVIEW
Traffic calming toolboxes are developed by communities that want to develop a process for identifying, addressing and monitoring excessive traffic speed or volume on streets not intended for non‐local traffic.  Generally, traffic calming is accomplished by encouraging slowerspeeds or diversion to higher‐capacity streets. This can be done through programs of education, citizen action and police intervention or infrastructure measures of signage, street narrowing, vertical changes and alterations to street cross sections and turning movements.

The types of traffic calming interventions utilized by Cities are generally similar, however the process to implement measures differs greatly by jurisdiction. While most Cities have a process to identify issues, determine interventions and monitor the results, the accountability and transparency of their processes are generally unique to each City.   Keys to a sustainable and effective program are to provide clear decision‐making and feedback to affected stakeholders.  This includes timely updates during each stage of the process and an assessment of the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures. Table 5 describes examples of traffic calming measures based on infrastructure types, which could ultimately be considered for recommendation within the City through this Citywide Circulation Study process.

Iteris, Inc.| 9
Table 5 – Traffic Calming Measures
Traffic Calming Measures Examples
Programs Neighborhood pledge, maintenance, speed watch, portable speed display, trash can stickers, citizen reports, and targeted police enforcement.

Infrastructure
Signage Warning signs, speed limit signs, flashing beacons, gateway treatments, high‐visibility crosswalks, fixed speed display signs, bicycle signs/ markings, stop signs Narrowing Striping centerlines or lanes, street parking, sidewalk and pathway improvements, road diet, intersection curb extensions or chokers
Vertical Raised reflectors, speed humps / lumps, speed cushions / tables, raised intersection, median barrier, raised median / pedestrian refuge
Cross‐
Section
Traffic circles, textured pavement, chicanes / lateral shift, diverters, curb radius reduction, realigned intersection, forced‐turn channelization

Innovating Through Informatics™
APPENDIX B – EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT DATA

4,088
12,430 9,648
7,070
483
765
608
1,485
1,967
Los Robles Ave
Virginia Rd
West Dr West Dr
San Marino Ave Sa
Lombardy Rd Lombardy Rd
Lombardy Rd Lombard Lomba
E California Blvd
5,667 13,750 12,019
8,082
585
1,157
366
1,929
345

MAP LEGEND
2010 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) *2010 ADT counts are per the 2010 Engineering and Traffic Survey2020 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) *2020 ADT counts were taken September 2019 for the 2020 Engineering and Traffic Survey Roadway Classification
Principal ArterialMinor ArterialMajor Collector
Local RoadSan Marino Jurisdictional Boundary
2010 ADT #
2020 ADT #
Prepared By:Transtech Engineers, Inc.Transtech.org855-595-2495 *2010 ADT counts are per the 2010 Engineering and Traffic Survey*2020 ADT counts were taken September 2019 for the 2020 Engineering and Traffic SurveyCITY OF SAN MARINO 2010 & 2020 CITYWIDE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) MAP

T R A F T D R A F T R D AF T
RA FT

DRA F TDR A
T F 12,430
R D AF
D R
T483
D
A R608
R
F RAT
DR
T Los Robles Ave Los Ro Virginia Rd
San Marino Ave San ardy Rd ve
E California Blvd E California Blv E California Blvd California Blv T13,750
R D A
D R
T585
D RA366
R
F RAT
DR
T

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
7 3
3 2
3 1
8 10
37 14
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.5% 0.86
TOTAL 0.6% 0.94
TH RT
WB 0.0% 0.82
NB 0.9% 0.94
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.9% 0.97

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Mission St Mission St Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 7 73 12 0 5
4 86 5 313 0
7:15 AM 0 9 25 0
7:00 AM 0 10 13 2 0 8 67 10 0 3 105 0 0
5 119 19 392 0
7:45 AM 0 13 42 3
7 0 4 124 2 0
424 0
7:30 AM 0 7 29 0 0 0 76
135 2 0 5 140 11
446 1,575
8:00 AM 0 17 39 3 0 4 51
0 2 70 12 0 13 126 3 0 4 143 15
0 3 69 9 0 1
6 102 9 387 1,649
8:15 AM 0 12 42 3
6 0 7 139 4 0
2 115 16 421 1,674
8:45 AM 0 17 32 4
8 0 3 124 6 0
420 1,645
8:30 AM 0 12 42 2 0 3 88
128 8 0 6 125 14
0 5 58 9 0 7 125 6 0 4 101 21 389 1,617
Count Total 0 97 264 17 0 32 552 36 931 110 3,192 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 54 165
73 0 43 1,006 31 0
0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 10 0
54 1,674 0
HV 0 0 1 1 0 0
11 0 12 278 35 0 24 517 21 0 18 485
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 1% 9% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% 1% 0% 1%
2 5
7:15 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 1
0 0 0 3 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
0 2 2 0 1 0
0 7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0
1 0 2 0 0 3
3 0
8:15 AM 0 0 5 0 5 0 0
1 1 0 2 0 0
1 1 0
8:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2 0
2 0 0 0 2 0
8:45 AM 1 1 1 1 4
0 2 1 1 4 2
1 8:30 AM 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 0
19 8
Peak Hour 2 0 5 3 10 3 2
Count Total 3 3 6 5 17 8 3 3 0 14 6 4
2 0 7 1 2 8 3
0 2
1 0
00 02
0 0
2 0
8 3
2 1
N
Los Robles Ave
Mission St
Mission St
Los Robles Ave
Mission St
Los Robles Ave
TEV: 1,674
PHF: 0.94
54 485
18 557
606
0 35
278
12 325
204
0 21
517
24 508
562
0 11
165
54 230
356
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Mission St Mission St Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
2 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 2 6
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 4
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
5 9
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 2 10
8:45 AM 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 4 13
0 5 0 17 0
Peak Hour 0 0 1 1
Count Total 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 0 0
7:00 AM 3 0
RT
10 0
Interval
Start
Mission St Mission St Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
9 8:00 AM
0 0 0 2
2 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0
0 0 0
2 7
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
7 8:30 AM
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 8
8:15 AM
0 1 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 2 0 0 0 0 7
1 2 0 0 14 0
0 0
0 0
0 3 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0
0 2
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 2 0 0 2 0
3 5 0 0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
2 8
4 8
5 1
4 7
39 17
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.3% 0.88
TOTAL 0.2% 0.92
TH RT
WB 0.3% 0.88
NB 0.4% 0.93
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.0% 0.92

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Mission St Mission St Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 1 49 9 0 3
10 176 24 490 0
4:15 PM 0 18 72 3
4:00 PM 0 19 86 5 0 1 55 7 0 4 101 2 0
10 141 20 478 0
4:45 PM 0 23 86 2
9 0 8 111 1 0
468 0
4:30 PM 0 26 86 8 0 1 57
123 2 0 13 158 17
526 1,962
5:00 PM 0 15 98 1 0 7 73
0 1 67 9 0 3 129 3 0 9 173 21
0 4 86 13 0 7
10 153 14 498 1,970
5:15 PM 0 16 110 2
9 0 3 112 3 0
10 140 23 511 2,109
5:45 PM 0 24 96 3
17 0 5 124 2 0
574 2,076
5:30 PM 0 26 79 3 0 4 78
114 2 0 8 176 36
0 2 60 10 0 9 122 5 0 10 173 24 538 2,121
Count Total 0 167 713 27 0 21 525 80 1,290 179 4,083 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 81 383
83 0 42 936 20 0
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 0
97 2,121 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 17 297 49 0 24 472 12 0 38 642
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 3% 0% 0% 0%
1 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 1 1 2 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0 2 1
3 4:30 PM 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0
0 0 4 2 0 3
5 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 0
1 6 1
5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 1 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 1 3
0 5:30 PM 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 0
0 1 2 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2
24 11
Peak Hour 0 1 2 2 5 0 2
Count Total 0 3 3 5 11 5 3 1 1 10 3 1
1 1 4 0 0 12 5
0 0
0 0
10 01
0 0
2 0
12 5
0 0
N
Los Robles Ave
Mission St
Mission St
Los Robles Ave
Mission St
Los Robles Ave
TEV: 2,121
PHF: 0.92
97 642
38 777
602
0 49
297
17 363
433
0 12
472
24 668
508
0 9
383
81 473
418
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Mission St Mission St Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 2 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 3 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 5
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 6
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0
1 6
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 3 6
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
1 4 0 11 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 0
4:00 PM 1 0
RT
5 0
Interval
Start
Mission St Mission St Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
6 5:00 PM
0 0 0 1
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0
0 0 0
1 5
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
4 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 1 0 2
1 6
5:15 PM
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 1
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 1 0 4
0 1 0 0 10 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 3 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 0
1 4 0 0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
5 3
5 5
3 2
23 18
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.6% 0.81
TOTAL 1.2% 0.92
TH RT
WB 2.9% 0.96
NB 1.5% 0.93
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.8% 0.81

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 19 1 0 8
1 90 2 254 0
7:15 AM 0 3 27 1
7:00 AM 0 2 26 1 0 0 17 1 0 5 107 2 0
3 115 5 335 0
7:45 AM 0 4 46 1
0 0 13 117 2 0
350 0
7:30 AM 0 9 45 0 0 1 25
142 3 0 0 144 2
393 1,332
8:00 AM 0 6 57 1 0 1 23
0 2 24 1 0 14 142 6 0 3 143 7
0 2 24 1 0 8
2 90 4 340 1,418
8:15 AM 0 3 71 2
0 0 5 145 6 0
2 111 5 323 1,438
8:45 AM 0 14 59 4
2 0 5 118 9 0
382 1,450
8:30 AM 0 8 44 2 0 4 13
137 8 0 2 117 7
0 1 27 0 0 10 135 6 0 1 101 8 366 1,411
Count Total 0 49 375 12 0 11 172 14 911 40 2,743 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 22 219
6 0 68 1,043 42 0
3 0 0 1 5 3 0 0 3 0 17 0
23 1,450 0
HV 0 0 2 0 0 0
4 0 6 96 2 0 40 541 22 0 10 465
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% 3% 0% - 3% 1% 14% - 0% 1% 0% 1%
0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 1 1 2
0 2 2 0 3 0
0 7:30 AM 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
3 0
8:15 AM 1 1 7 0 9 3 0
0 0 0 3 0 2
2 0 0
8:00 AM 1 0 1 2 4 3
0 0 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 1 0 2 1 4
0 0 1 0 0 2
0 8:30 AM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 3 1 1 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
9 4
Peak Hour 2 3 9 3 17 8 0
Count Total 4 3 12 6 25 8 0 1 0 9 5 5
0 0 8 4 5 9 0
0 6
2 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
9 0
5 4
N
Los Robles Ave
Monterey Rd
Monterey Rd
Los Robles Ave
Monterey Rd
Los Robles Ave
TEV: 1,450
PHF: 0.92
23 465
10 498
565
0 2
96 6
104
251
0 22
541
40 475
603
0 4
219
22 245
159
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 4 8
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
2 6
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 1 0
9 17
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 2 17
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
1 1 0 0 1 0 4 19
0 6 0 25 0
Peak Hour 0 0 2 0
Count Total 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 6 5 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
17 0
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 3 0 0 1 5 3 0 0 3 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
3 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
2 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
0 6
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
8 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3 6
8:15 AM
0 0 0
1 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 8
0 1 0 0 9 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
2 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 2
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 2 6 0 0 0 0
2 6 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
3 2
1 2
4 2
4 0
18 10
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.3% 0.92
TOTAL 0.5% 0.96
TH RT
WB 1.3% 0.92
NB 0.4% 0.93
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.3% 0.93

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 8 54 1 0 7
0 161 7 419 0
4:15 PM 0 7 76 2
4:00 PM 0 10 70 9 0 5 54 2 0 2 94 5 0
2 150 5 434 0
4:45 PM 0 10 64 3
6 0 5 109 2 0
448 0
4:30 PM 0 7 72 9 0 8 59
121 5 0 4 154 9
459 1,760
5:00 PM 0 13 88 3 0 6 61
0 6 64 3 0 6 122 4 0 4 170 3
0 5 74 2 0 5
0 150 2 435 1,776
5:15 PM 0 11 80 9
3 0 5 102 2 0
2 142 3 457 1,827
5:45 PM 0 11 65 10
6 0 5 115 6 0
476 1,804
5:30 PM 0 8 97 2 0 14 57
111 6 0 0 166 7
0 9 58 2 0 5 118 9 0 2 165 9 463 1,831
Count Total 0 77 612 47 0 61 481 14 1,258 45 3,591 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 43 330
25 0 40 892 39 0
4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 9 0
21 1,831 0
HV 0 0 1 0 0 0
24 0 34 250 13 0 20 446 23 0 4 623
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 2% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0%
2 1
4:15 PM 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0
1 4:30 PM 1 1 2 1 5 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 1
5:15 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 2
1 0 1
5:00 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 2
0 3 1 0 0 3
1 5:30 PM 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 0
0 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 8
Peak Hour 1 4 2 2 9 3 0
Count Total 3 6 6 4 19 3 0 1 1 5 3 3
1 1 5 2 2 1 5
0 3
0 0
10 01
0 0
0 0
1 5
2 2
N
Los Robles Ave
Monterey Rd
Monterey Rd
Los Robles Ave
Monterey Rd
Los Robles Ave
TEV: 1,831
PHF: 0.96
21 623
4 648
502
0 13
250
34 297
357
0 23
446
20 681
489
0 24
330
43 397
291
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 2 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
2 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 5 0
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
0 1 0 2 10
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 10
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 10
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 1 0 3 8
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9
0 4 0 19 0
Peak Hour 0 0 1 0
Count Total 0 0 3 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 3 3 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
9 0
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 5:00 PM
0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
3 5
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
2 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
1 1
5:15 PM
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 3 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 1
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 1 0 5
0 1 0 0 5 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0 0
0 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
1 2
1 4
0 5
2 8
23 7
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.4% 0.89
TOTAL 0.6% 0.98
TH RT
WB 1.7% 0.73
NB 0.6% 0.86
Peak Hour: 7:15 AM 8:15 AM
HV %: PHF
EB - -

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Driveway Wilson Ave Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 5 0 1 0 0
1 84 0 225 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 117 11 0
0 128 0 292 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 130 21 0
310 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 9 0
143 17 0 1 143 0
315 1,142
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 15 0
0 15 0 5 0 0 138 20 0 1 136 0
0 10 0 4 0 0
0 104 0 315 1,232
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 164 28 0
1 114 0 286 1,214
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 141 16 0
298 1,220
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 13 0
137 30 0 0 117 0
0 15 0 4 0 0 137 33 0 2 112 0 303 1,202
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 6 938 0 2,344 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
24 0 0 1,107 176 0
0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 7 0
0 1,232 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 44 0 14 0 0 575 86 0 2 511
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - - - - - 2% - 0% - - 0% 2% - 0% 0% - 1%
0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 1 2 1 4
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 1 1 0
0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 7 1 8 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 0
8:00 AM 0 0 2 1 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 4 1 5
0 0 1 0 1 0
0 8:30 AM 0 1 2 1 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 0
8 0
Peak Hour 0 1 4 2 7 0 0
Count Total 0 2 17 6 25 0 0 1 0 1 3 12
1 0 1 1 4 2 0
0 0
0 0
00 01
0 0
0 0
2 0
4 1
N
Los Robles Ave
Wilson Ave
Wilson Ave
Los Robles Ave
Driveway Los Robles Ave
TEV: 1,232
PHF: 0.98
0 511
2 513
589
0 14
0 44
58 88
0 86
575
0 555
661
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Driveway Wilson Ave Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 3 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
4 5
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 0
8 15
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 4 19
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
2 2 0 0 1 0 5 20
0 6 0 25 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 5 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
7 0
Interval
Start
Driveway Wilson Ave Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 4
0 4
1 0
2 0
11 3
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.4% 0.94
TOTAL 0.5% 0.94
TH RT
WB 0.0% 0.87
NB 0.7% 0.94
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB - -

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Driveway Wilson Ave Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 23 0 1 0 0
1 170 0 329 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 4 0 0 122 14 0
2 162 0 315 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 120 11 0
317 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 18 0
113 11 0 1 168 0
356 1,317
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 25 0
0 29 0 2 0 0 132 15 0 0 178 0
0 30 0 6 0 0
1 161 0 309 1,297
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 100 20 0
2 164 0 342 1,353
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 126 19 0
346 1,326
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 29 0
125 13 0 1 171 0
0 36 0 2 0 0 120 22 0 1 179 0 360 1,357
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 208 0 9 1,353 0 2,674 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
21 0 0 958 125 0
0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 7 0
0 1,357 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 120 0 12 0 0 471 74 0 5 675
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - - - - - 0% - 0% - - 1% 1% - 0% 0% - 1%
0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 2 1 3 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4 0
0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
3 1 0
5:00 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
0 5:30 PM 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0
Peak Hour 0 0 4 3 7 0 0
Count Total 0 0 8 5 13 0 0 1 1 2 0 9
1 1 2 0 2 1 0
0 0
0 0
10 01
0 0
0 0
1 0
2 0
N
Los Robles Ave
Wilson Ave
Wilson Ave
Los Robles Ave
Driveway Los Robles Ave
TEV: 1,357
PHF: 0.94
0 675
5 680
483
0 12
0 120
132
79 0
74 471
0 795
545
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Driveway Wilson Ave Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 3 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 3 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 1 0 2 5
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 6
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 5 7
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
0 5 0 13 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
7 0
Interval
Start
Driveway Wilson Ave Los Robles Ave Los Robles Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 5:00 PM
0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 2
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
2 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
1 1
5:15 PM
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 1
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 1 0 2
0 1 0 0 2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
9 1
6 4
6 1
2 3
32 17
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.5% 0.91
TOTAL 1.0% 0.95
TH RT
WB 0.8% 0.93
NB 1.1% 0.93
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.6% 0.90

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Atlantic Blvd Los Robles Ave 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
2 115 355 11 0 0
5 89 9 866 0
7:15 AM 0 22 149 1
7:00 AM 1 7 103 0 0 114 332 8 0 0 116 82 0
14 119 14 1,064 0
7:45 AM 2 26 228 0
8 0 0 120 110 0
1,010 0
7:30 AM 3 19 186 2 4 140 325
135 82 0 7 122 9
1,187 4,127
8:00 AM 1 22 203 0 4 114 372
2 120 416 10 0 0 128 103 0 12 125 15
1 127 367 10 0 0
16 96 12 1,122 4,383
8:15 AM 2 21 205 0
17 0 0 162 103 0
10 108 9 1,064 4,497
8:45 AM 3 22 179 2
15 0 0 127 135 0
1,124 4,497
8:30 AM 1 20 163 0 2 139 335
134 128 0 8 96 25
1 120 300 15 0 0 139 99 0 9 109 16 1,014 4,324
Count Total 13 159 1,416 5 16 989 2,802 81 864 109 8,451 0 Peak
Hour
All 8 88 822
94 0 0 1,061 842 0
11 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 3 0 45 0
66 4,497 0
HV 1 2 12 0 0 5
2 11 501 1,480 45 0 0 544 444 0 50 436
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 13% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% - - 1% 1% - 0% 1% 0% 1%
0 6
7:15 AM 2 10 1 0 13 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 3
West North South
7:00 AM 4 3 0 1 8 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 5 5 3 2 15
0 0 0 2 0 4
1 7:30 AM 3 6 1 0 10 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
0 4
8:15 AM 4 0 5 0 9 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 2
2 0 1
8:00 AM 3 5 2 1 11 0
1 1 0 0 2 1
8:45 AM 3 11 1 1 16
0 0 0 2 0 0
1 8:30 AM 0 8 2 2 12 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1
0 18
Peak Hour 15 16 11 3 45 1 2
Count Total 24 48 15 7 94 3 2 1 0 6 1 13
0 0 3 1 6 0 10
0 1
0 0
00 00
0 0
2 0
0 10
6 1
N
Atlantic Blvd
Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr
Atlantic Blvd
Huntington Dr Los Robles Ave
TEV: 4,497
PHF: 0.95
66 436
50 552
677
0 45
1,480
501
2,037
1,327
11 544
444
0 939
988
0 2
822
88 920
1,554
8 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Atlantic Blvd Los Robles Ave 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 8 0
7:15 AM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 4 0 0 1 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
13 0
7:30 AM 1 0 2 0 0 4 2
0 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 5 0 0 0
0 0 0 10 0
7:45 AM 0 0 5 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 11 49
8:15 AM 0 1 3 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
15 46
8:00 AM 0 1 2 0 0 1 4
0 3 0 0 2 0
9 45
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0
0 2 6 3 0 0
0 2 0 12 47
8:45 AM 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 16 48
0 7 0 94 0
Peak Hour 1 2 12 0
Count Total 1 3 20 0 0 13 32 3 0 0 7 8 0
7:00 AM 1 0
RT
45 0
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Atlantic Blvd Los Robles Ave 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 5 11 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 3 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
4 8:00 AM
0 0 0 2
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0
0 1 0
0 3
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
3 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 4
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 1 0 0 6 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 2 0
0 3 0 0 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
17 2
8 7
4 5
3 5
51 17
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.2% 0.94
TOTAL 0.4% 0.97
TH RT
WB 0.7% 0.94
NB 0.2% 0.96
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.4% 0.98

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Atlantic Blvd Los Robles Ave 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
6 114 208 8 0 0
31 151 10 1,022 0
4:15 PM 4 13 346 2
4:00 PM 6 24 331 3 6 95 142 6 0 0 117 100 0
21 159 11 1,113 0
4:45 PM 1 19 373 2
6 0 0 117 104 0
1,111 0
4:30 PM 7 21 358 0 10 107 192
93 115 0 21 176 5
1,172 4,418
5:00 PM 2 19 402 1 8 102 207
14 114 198 5 0 0 118 110 0 32 173 13
8 119 226 7 0 0
25 162 8 1,162 4,558
5:15 PM 1 19 369 3
8 0 0 100 118 0
22 170 9 1,227 4,751
5:45 PM 1 25 389 5
14 0 0 122 108 0
1,190 4,637
5:30 PM 1 23 401 0 9 111 237
107 109 0 32 184 6
12 111 196 15 0 0 88 128 0 25 192 8 1,195 4,774
Count Total 23 163 2,969 16 73 873 1,606 209 1,367 70 9,192 0 Peak
Hour
All 5 86 1,561
69 0 0 862 892 0
6 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 20 0
31 4,774 0
HV 0 0 6 0 0 2
9 37 443 866 44 0 0 417 463 0 104 708
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% - - 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0%
0 13
4:15 PM 1 2 3 0 6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4
West North South
4:00 PM 3 4 1 1 9 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 3 3 1 0 7
0 2 0 1 1 6
1 4:30 PM 0 4 0 1 5 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 3
5:15 PM 0 3 0 0 3 1 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
2 0 5
5:00 PM 1 2 1 1 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 1 2 1 0 4
0 0 0 2 0 1
4 5:30 PM 4 3 0 1 8 0 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
1 36
Peak Hour 6 10 2 2 20 1 0
Count Total 13 23 7 4 47 3 0 1 1 5 0 14
1 1 3 0 6 0 11
0 1
0 0
10 01
0 0
0 0
0 11
6 0
N
Atlantic Blvd
Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr
Atlantic Blvd
Huntington Dr Los Robles Ave
TEV: 4,774
PHF: 0.97
31 708
104
843
547
0 44
866
443
1,390
2,165
37 417
463
0 1,160
880
0 9
1,561
86 1,661
902
5 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Atlantic Blvd Los Robles Ave 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 9 0
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 1 0 2 0 0 2 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
6 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
0 2 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 5 0
4:45 PM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 5 23
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
7 27
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
0 1 0 0 0 0
3 20
5:30 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 1
0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 8 23
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 4 20
0 3 1 47 0
Peak Hour 0 0 6 0
Count Total 1 0 12 0 0 7 13 3 0 0 2 5 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
20 0
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Atlantic Blvd Los Robles Ave 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 2 6 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
2 5:00 PM
0 0 0 0
2 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 3
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
5 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 1 0 2
1 3
5:15 PM
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 1
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 1 0 3
0 1 0 0 5 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
2 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
5 9
2 4
4 9
5 6
44 22
WB - -
NB 0.5% 0.93
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.5% 0.81
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.3% 0.87
TOTAL 0.5% 0.96

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Mission St n/a El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 0 0 0 57
0 19 27 163 0
7:15 AM 0 22 0 9
7:00 AM 0 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 51 51 0 0
0 35 42 261 0
7:45 AM 0 27 0 25
0 0 45 102 0 0
221 0
7:30 AM 0 17 0 20 0 0 0
74 0 0 0 24 35
284 929
8:00 AM 0 39 0 12 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 47 108 0 0 0 38 39
0 0 0 0 0 42
0 29 44 250 1,016
8:15 AM 0 42 0 24
0 0 26 100 0 0
0 29 57 283 1,106
8:45 AM 0 27 0 8
0 0 34 117 0 0
289 1,084
8:30 AM 0 29 0 17 0 0 0
117 0 0 0 27 37
0 0 0 0 0 49 112 0 0 0 22 29 247 1,069
Count Total 0 208 0 125 0 0 0 0 223 310 1,998 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 137 0
0 0 351 781 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 5 0
177 1,106 0
HV 0 0 0 1 0 0
78 0 0 0 0 0 149 442 0 0 0 123
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% - 1% - - - - - 0% 1% - - - 1% 0% 0%
1 2
7:15 AM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0
0 1 0 4 2 0
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0
0 1 1 6 0 3
1 0
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
0 2 0 3 3 0
1 1 0
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 1
0 0 0 2 2 2
8:45 AM 0 0 2 1 3
1 1 1 1 3 0
1 8:30 AM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 1 5 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0
13 3
Peak Hr 1 0 3 1 5 2 0
Count Total 1 0 7 5 13 5 0 3 4 12 24 4
2 3 7 11 3 7 1
0 2
1 2 1
1 7
1 3
11 N
El Molino Ave
Mission St
El Molino Ave
El Molino Ave
Mission St
TEV: 1,106
PHF: 0.96
177123 300
579
0 149
442
201
591
0 78
137 215
326
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Mission St n/a El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
2 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 3 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 7
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 6
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 6
8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 2 5
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 0 3 7
0 3 2 13 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 1
Count Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
5 0
Interval
Start
Mission St n/a El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 4 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 3 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 6
7 8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 2 0 2
1 7
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 6
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Count Total 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 12 0
Peak Hour 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 7 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
7 5
3 1
3 3
4 7
33 17
WB - -
NB 0.3% 0.87
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.2% 0.91
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.0% 0.93
TOTAL 0.2% 0.93

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Mission St n/a El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 0 0 0 32
0 64 25 252 0
4:15 PM 1 24 0 62
4:00 PM 0 29 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 26 37 0 0
0 64 37 263 0
4:45 PM 0 32 0 67
0 0 29 41 0 0
257 0
4:30 PM 0 23 0 69 0 0 0
47 0 0 0 61 30
300 1,072
5:00 PM 0 36 0 78 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 44 57 0 0 0 64 36
0 0 0 0 0 48
0 81 51 329 1,149
5:15 PM 0 58 0 65
0 0 42 41 0 0
0 67 56 337 1,324
5:45 PM 0 47 0 60
0 0 41 69 0 0
358 1,250
5:30 PM 1 47 0 56 0 0 0
65 0 0 0 72 50
0 0 0 0 0 39 47 0 0 0 78 37 308 1,332
Count Total 2 296 0 528 0 0 0 0 551 322 2,404 0
Peak
Hour
All 1 188 0
0 0 301 404 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
194 1,332 0
HV 0 0 0 1 0 0
259 0 0 0 0 0 170 222 0 0 0 298
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 0% - 0% - - - - - 1% 0% - - - 0% 0% 0%
4 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 1 3 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 0
0 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
0 2 4 1 2 2
3 0
5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 1 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 3
0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1
17 4
Peak Hr 1 0 1 0 2 0 0
Count Total 1 0 2 0 3 4 0 1 4 9 7 5
1 1 2 0 3 10 4
0 0
1 0 0
1 10
4 3
0 N
El Molino Ave
Mission St
El Molino Ave
El Molino Ave
Mission St
TEV: 1,332
PHF: 0.93
194298 492
410
0 170
222
557
392
0 259
188 448
365
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Mission St n/a El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 3 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 1
Count Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
2 0
Interval
Start
Mission St n/a El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0
1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 4 0
4:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 7
7 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 1
1 3
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Count Total 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 9 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
3 4
10 0
4 5
2 3
31 19
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.5% 0.83
TOTAL 1.0% 0.91
TH RT
WB 3.6% 0.78
NB 0.5% 0.91
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 2.0% 0.78

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 5 4 2 0 7
5 17 8 168 0
7:15 AM 0 5 23 2
7:00 AM 0 7 22 1 0 3 6 3 0 4 90 2 0
21 23 10 261 0
7:45 AM 0 16 36 3
5 0 7 129 3 0
214 0
7:30 AM 0 7 36 8 0 3 9
125 7 0 5 20 9
280 923
8:00 AM 0 17 46 2 0 4 6
0 4 3 1 0 15 137 3 0 17 37 8
0 2 12 4 0 7
13 18 8 241 996
8:15 AM 0 24 53 4
3 0 10 106 8 0
6 31 6 255 1,074
8:45 AM 0 16 49 4
2 0 9 132 3 0
298 1,080
8:30 AM 0 16 35 4 0 4 7
134 7 0 13 31 7
0 1 18 3 0 6 143 3 0 3 24 2 272 1,066
Count Total 0 108 300 28 0 26 65 83 201 58 1,989 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 64 171
23 0 65 996 36 0
2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 11 0
33 1,080 0
HV 0 1 3 1 0 0
17 0 13 30 13 0 39 506 21 0 64 109
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 2% 2% 6% - 0% 7% 0% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% 0% 3% 1%
0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 3 4 1 1
West North South
7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 0 0 0 1
0 1 3 1 4 2
0 7:30 AM 0 1 1 1 3 1 0 0
0 0 0 4 0 0
2 0
8:15 AM 3 1 0 0 4 2 0
0 1 0 3 2 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 1 0 2 0 3 2
1 0 0 2 3 0
8:45 AM 2 0 1 1 4
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 8:30 AM 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0
0 0 2 2 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
8 6
Peak Hour 5 2 3 1 11 6 0
Count Total 9 2 4 4 19 6 0 2 5 13 14 3
1 2 9 7 2 8 2
0 3
3 0
20 01
0 0
0 0
8 2
2 7
N
El Molino Ave
Monterey Rd
Monterey Rd
El Molino Ave
Monterey Rd
El Molino Ave
TEV: 1,080
PHF: 0.91
33 109
64 206
583
0 13
30 13
56 256
0 21
506
39 139
566
0 17
171
64 252
102
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 3 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 3 7
8:15 AM 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
1 5
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 11
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 3 11
8:45 AM 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 4 14
0 3 1 19 0
Peak Hour 0 1 3 1
Count Total 0 3 5 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0
7:00 AM 4 0
RT
11 0
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
8 8:00 AM
0 0 0 3
1 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 8
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
9 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3 7
8:15 AM
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Peak Hour
Count Total 3 2
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 2 0 9
0 2 0 0 13 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 LT TH
0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0
0 2 0
1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 3 3 0 0 0 0
3 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
6 3
1 1
0 3
3 3
20 7
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.2% 0.91
TOTAL 0.5% 0.96
TH RT
WB 0.0% 0.88
NB 0.9% 0.88
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.8% 0.86

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 7 47 11 0 9
33 84 9 315 0
4:15 PM 0 11 66 9
4:00 PM 0 4 64 7 0 3 46 11 0 7 44 3 0
27 77 16 331 0
4:45 PM 0 9 57 7
9 0 3 59 6 0
346 0
4:30 PM 0 6 59 12 0 4 53
55 3 0 31 88 9
366 1,358
5:00 PM 0 9 69 13 0 7 57
0 6 59 13 0 13 76 3 0 29 87 7
0 8 66 26 0 13
20 104 5 373 1,416
5:15 PM 0 14 63 12
20 0 9 54 6 0
17 81 8 397 1,527
5:45 PM 0 8 61 11
19 0 9 86 4 0
391 1,461
5:30 PM 0 10 79 14 0 17 53
75 2 0 16 91 5
0 3 51 19 0 7 57 3 0 29 93 10 352 1,513
Count Total 0 71 518 85 0 55 432 202 705 69 2,871 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 42 268
128 0 70 506 30 0
0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 7 0
25 1,527 0
HV 0 0 1 2 0 0
46 0 38 235 78 0 44 291 15 0 82 363
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 0% 4% - 0% 0% 0% - 5% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0%
2 2
4:15 PM 2 0 1 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 1 0 0 1 2
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 4:30 PM 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0
0 1 1 2 1 0
0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1
5:00 PM 2 0 1 0 3 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 2
0 1 1 0 0 2
1 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 2 0
1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0
3 6
Peak Hour 3 0 3 1 7 2 1
Count Total 6 3 6 2 17 3 1 0 2 6 5 6
0 1 4 1 2 0 4
1 1
0 0
10 00
0 1
0 0
0 4
2 1
N
El Molino Ave
Monterey Rd
Monterey Rd
El Molino Ave
Monterey Rd
El Molino Ave
TEV: 1,527
PHF: 0.96
25 363
82 470
411
0 78
235
38 351
365
0 15
291
44 447
350
0 46
268
42 356
304
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
3 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 4 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 3 12
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
2 10
5:00 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
2 11
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 7
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7
0 2 0 17 0
Peak Hour 0 0 1 2
Count Total 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
7 0
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd El Molino Ave El Molino Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
2 5:00 PM
0 0 0 1
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
1 4
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
3 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 3
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 2
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 1 0 4
0 0 0 0 6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0 1
0 2 1 0 0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
2 9
2 0
3 4
5 4
29 9
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.0% 0.81
TOTAL 0.9% 0.95
TH RT
WB 0.6% 0.97
NB 1.5% 0.85
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.3% 0.92

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Granada Ave Granada Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 7 459 14 0 55
4 6 0 765 0
7:15 AM 1 5 263 6
7:00 AM 3 1 208 3 0 5 415 16 0 43 38 23 0
35 11 0 996 0
7:45 AM 3 3 379 14
11 0 59 42 18 0
900 0
7:30 AM 0 3 341 12 0 5 459
43 23 0 10 13 1
1,095 3,756
8:00 AM 5 6 339 16 1 9 438
0 8 479 24 0 70 48 21 0 27 16 3
1 19 464 25 0 47
14 6 0 979 3,970
8:15 AM 3 4 406 5
36 0 68 23 18 0
11 10 2 986 4,141
8:45 AM 3 6 311 8
25 0 55 35 25 0
1,081 4,151
8:30 AM 5 6 340 7 0 6 459
36 21 0 36 10 4
2 12 381 20 0 43 43 26 0 12 9 3 879 3,925
Count Total 23 34 2,587 71 4 71 3,554 149 81 13 7,681 0 Peak
Hour
All 11 16 1,465
171 0 440 308 175 0
11 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 39 0
7 4,151 0
HV 2 0 18 0 0 0
47 2 41 1,840 96 0 244 149 78 0 112 43
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 18% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% - 2% 0% 3% - 0% 0% 0% 1%
1 0
7:15 AM 3 7 2 0 12 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
West North South
7:00 AM 8 3 0 0 11 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 9 2 2 0 13
0 0 1 0 1 0
2 7:30 AM 3 5 3 0 11 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 0 3
1 2
8:15 AM 5 2 1 0 8 0 0
1 2 0 4 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 3 3 1 0 7 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 2 8 1 1 12
0 0 0 1 0 4
1 8:30 AM 3 8 0 1 12 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 2 0
1 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 3
6 12
Peak Hour 20 12 7 0 39 1 1
Count Total 36 38 10 2 86 2 3 2 0 7 6 5
2 0 4 2 2 2 3
0 1
0 0
00 11
0 0
1 0
2 3
2 2
N
Granada Ave
Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr
Granada Ave
Huntington Dr Granada Ave
TEV: 4,151
PHF: 0.95
7 43
112
162
261
0 96
1,840
41 1,979
1,657
2 78
244
149
131
471
0 47
1,465
16 1,539
2,102
11 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Granada Ave Granada Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 11 0
7:15 AM 1 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 8 0 0 0 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
12 0
7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 4
0 0 7 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 2
0 0 0 11 0
7:45 AM 0 0 9 0
1 0 2 0 1 0
0 0 0 7 43
8:15 AM 1 0 4 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
13 47
8:00 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 39
8:30 AM 1 1 1 0 0 0 8
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 8 0 0 1
1 0 0 12 40
8:45 AM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 12 39
2 0 0 86 0
Peak Hour 2 0 18 0
Count Total 4 1 31 0 0 0 37 1 0 7 0 3 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
39 0
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Granada Ave Granada Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 11 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 8:00 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 4
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
4 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 4
8:15 AM
1 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
1 1 0 0 0 0 4
1 1 0 0 7 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 2 0 0 1 2
0 0 0
0 0 2
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
4 4
9 1
5 4
1 5
33 15
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.6% 0.76
TOTAL 0.4% 0.95
TH RT
WB 0.6% 0.91
NB 0.0% 0.73
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.3% 0.94

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Granada Ave Granada Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
3 42 342 11 0 11
26 45 7 862 0
4:15 PM 0 4 449 19
4:00 PM 2 5 401 10 1 24 283 13 0 13 17 15 0
40 35 2 962 0
4:45 PM 2 7 484 22
13 0 12 18 32 0
985 0
4:30 PM 3 3 404 16 1 28 355
20 21 0 25 34 4
980 3,789
5:00 PM 1 4 454 18 2 35 378
5 37 281 15 0 10 25 18 0 23 47 4
1 45 345 18 0 28
36 45 6 1,049 3,976
5:15 PM 2 8 408 13
25 0 10 22 13 0
21 42 3 1,116 4,182
5:45 PM 2 4 490 24
22 0 12 23 23 0
1,037 4,028
5:30 PM 1 1 498 18 3 50 399
35 18 0 48 62 6
2 42 346 9 0 14 17 22 0 29 49 6 1,056 4,258
Count Total 13 36 3,588 140 18 303 2,729 248 359 38 8,047 0 Peak
Hour
All 6 17 1,850
126 0 110 177 162 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 18 0
21 4,258 0
HV 1 0 5 0 0 0
73 8 172 1,468 74 0 64 97 76 0 134 198
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 1% 0% 0% 0%
0 1
4:15 PM 7 2 1 0 10 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 2
West North South
4:00 PM 2 3 0 2 7 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 4 2 0 3 9
0 3 2 4 1 2
2 4:30 PM 0 6 0 1 7 3 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 3
5:15 PM 1 3 0 0 4 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
0 1 0
5:00 PM 1 2 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
5:45 PM 1 3 0 1 5
0 0 1 0 0 0
3 5:30 PM 3 2 0 1 6 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
3 14
Peak Hour 6 10 0 2 18 1 0
Count Total 19 23 1 8 51 4 0 0 1 5 7 9
0 0 1 2 3 1 9
0 1
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
1 9
3 2
N
Granada Ave
Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr
Granada Ave
Huntington Dr Granada Ave
TEV: 4,258
PHF: 0.95
21 198
134
353
188
0 74
1,468
172
1,722
2,068
8 64
97 76
443
237
0 73
1,850
17 1,946
1,559
6 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Granada Ave Granada Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
2 0 0 7 0
4:15 PM 0 0 6 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 1 0 1 0 0 0 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
10 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
1 0 0 7 0
4:45 PM 1 0 3 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 29
5:15 PM 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
9 33
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 1 1 1
4 23
5:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0
1 0 0 6 22
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 5 18
6 1 1 51 0
Peak Hour 1 0 5 0
Count Total 3 0 15 1 0 0 22 1 0 0 1 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
18 0
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Granada Ave Granada Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
4 5:00 PM
0 0 0 1
3 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 2
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
5 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 4
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 1
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 5 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0
2 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 3 1 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 1
2 3
0 6
3 3
18 12
Date: 11-13-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.8% 0.92
TOTAL 0.6% 0.96
TH RT
WB 0.6% 0.90
NB 0.8% 0.94
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.3% 0.78

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Oak Knoll Ave Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 1 68 21 0 5
5 44 3 220 0
7:15 AM 0 4 35 0
7:00 AM 0 6 17 1 0 0 47 20 0 2 74 1 0
5 59 4 313 0
7:45 AM 0 9 78 5
16 0 2 90 1 0
258 0
7:30 AM 0 9 55 5 0 0 67
83 0 0 4 36 1
333 1,124
8:00 AM 0 4 58 3 0 0 73
0 0 72 14 0 4 93 0 0 6 44 8
0 0 70 19 0 4
9 48 6 302 1,206
8:15 AM 0 10 57 1
11 0 6 82 2 0
8 57 3 330 1,278
8:45 AM 0 11 42 5
25 0 10 91 1 0
313 1,261
8:30 AM 0 7 48 6 0 0 74
92 0 0 9 45 6
0 0 69 13 0 3 112 0 0 7 43 3 308 1,253
Count Total 0 60 390 26 0 1 540 53 376 34 2,377 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 30 241
139 0 36 717 5 0
1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 8 0
23 1,278 0
HV 0 0 1 0 0 0
15 0 0 289 69 0 24 358 3 0 32 194
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 0% 0% - - 0% 1% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% 1% 0% 1%
0 0
7:15 AM 0 3 1 0 4 0 1
0 0 0 2 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 0 1 0 3 4 2
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 0 0 1 2
0 2 0 1 1 0
0 7:30 AM 0 1 1 1 3 0 2 0
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0
8:15 AM 0 1 2 0 3 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 2
8:00 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0
0 1 0 0 1 1
8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 2
0 0 0 1 1 1
1 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 4
0 1 1 0 2 0 0 3 0
9 4
Peak Hour 1 2 3 2 8 0 2
Count Total 1 7 6 7 21 2 6 1 0 9 2 3
0 0 2 1 2 5 4
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
2 0
5 4
2 1
N
Oak Knoll Ave
Monterey Rd
Monterey Rd
Oak Knoll Ave
Monterey Rd
Oak Knoll Ave
TEV: 1,278
PHF: 0.96
23 194
32 249
457
0 69
289
0 358
276
0 3
358
24 209
385
0 15
241
30 286
336
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Oak Knoll Ave Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 3 0 4 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
4 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 3 0
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 2 11
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
2 13
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0
3 10
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 8
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 2 8
1 6 0 21 0
Peak Hour 0 0 1 0
Count Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 0 0
7:00 AM 2 0
RT
8 0
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Oak Knoll Ave Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
6 8:00 AM
0 0 0 1
2 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 0
0 1 0
0 2
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
4 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 5
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 1 0 0 9 0
0 0
0 0
1 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 0
1 1 0 0 6 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
2 1
2 1
1 1
1 0
9 3
Date: 11-13-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.4% 0.96
TOTAL 0.3% 0.95
TH RT
WB 0.0% 0.73
NB 0.4% 0.89
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.2% 0.93

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Oak Knoll Ave Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 52 5 0 3
13 90 8 296 0
4:15 PM 0 6 88 4
4:00 PM 0 5 75 8 0 2 41 10 0 6 38 0 0
12 99 9 339 0
4:45 PM 0 6 92 4
11 0 2 47 1 0
330 0
4:30 PM 0 8 98 6 0 2 44
55 1 0 13 96 7
343 1,308
5:00 PM 0 4 98 10 0 0 51
0 2 45 10 0 7 61 1 0 18 91 6
0 3 78 10 0 5
17 96 6 350 1,362
5:15 PM 0 7 92 8
6 0 3 59 0 0
6 104 9 357 1,426
5:45 PM 0 7 95 10
9 0 6 51 0 0
376 1,408
5:30 PM 0 4 107 10 0 0 51
67 1 0 7 92 6
0 1 49 6 0 5 62 0 0 15 96 5 351 1,434
Count Total 0 47 745 60 0 10 411 101 764 56 2,742 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 22 392
67 0 37 440 4 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0
26 1,434 0
HV 0 0 0 1 0 0
38 0 4 229 31 0 19 239 1 0 45 388
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 0% 3% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 0% 0%
0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 1 2 0
West North South
4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 0 0 3 1 4
0 1 0 1 1 0
0 4:30 PM 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1
1 0
5:15 PM 0 0 1 1 2 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1
0 1 0 0 1 0
0 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0
Peak Hour 1 0 1 2 4 2 1
Count Total 2 1 4 6 13 5 1 0 0 6 2 3
0 0 3 0 1 2 0
0 2
0 0
00 00
0 0
1 0
2 0
1 0
N
Oak Knoll Ave
Monterey Rd
Monterey Rd
Oak Knoll Ave
Monterey Rd
Oak Knoll Ave
TEV: 1,434
PHF: 0.95
26 388
45 459
292
0 31
229
4 264
438
0 1
239
19 430
259
0 38
392
22 452
274
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Oak Knoll Ave Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 1 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
1 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 3 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 9
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 0
2 9
5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 7
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4
0 6 0 13 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 1
Count Total 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0
4:00 PM 1 0
RT
4 0
Interval
Start
Monterey Rd Monterey Rd Oak Knoll Ave Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
3 5:00 PM
0 0 0 0
1 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0
0 0 0
1 3
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
3 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 3
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 6 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
1 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 1 0
0 5 0 0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
1 3
8 2
5 1
1 4
25 9
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.8% 0.80
TOTAL 0.9% 0.94
TH RT
WB 0.7% 0.94
NB - -
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.1% 0.90

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Driveway Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 410 20 0 0
6 0 34 693 0
7:15 AM 0 59 224 0
7:00 AM 0 51 163 0 0 0 417 22 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 53 841 0
7:45 AM 0 87 348 0
17 0 0 0 0 0
776 0
7:30 AM 0 65 261 0 0 0 436
0 0 0 5 0 58
1,014 3,324
8:00 AM 0 57 294 0 0 0 412
0 0 447 20 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 98
0 0 440 16 0 0
5 0 79 868 3,499
8:15 AM 0 73 371 0
21 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 59 930 3,803
8:45 AM 0 73 272 0
21 0 0 0 0 0
991 3,714
8:30 AM 0 65 302 0 0 0 470
0 0 0 12 0 79
0 0 347 31 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 59 801 3,590
Count Total 0 530 2,235 0 0 0 3,379 83 0 519 6,914 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 282 1,315
168 0 0 0 0 0
12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 34 0
315 3,803 0
HV 0 3 15 0 0 0
0 0 0 1,769 78 0 0 0 0 0 44 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 1% 1% - - - 1% 1% - - - - - 0% - 1% 1%
1 0
7:15 AM 5 4 0 3 12 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 6 3 0 0 9 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 8 2 0 0 10
0 2 0 0 2 6
2 7:30 AM 4 4 0 1 9 2 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 2
8:15 AM 6 2 0 0 8 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
0 1 1
8:00 AM 2 3 0 2 7 0
0 1 0 0 1 0
8:45 AM 3 6 0 2 11
0 1 0 0 0 1
1 8:30 AM 2 6 0 1 9 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4
5 17
Peak Hour 18 13 0 3 34 1 1
Count Total 36 30 0 9 75 3 1 0 2 6 3 0
0 0 2 2 0 2 5
0 1
0 0
00 00
0 0
1 0
2 5
0 2
N
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr
Driveway
Huntington Dr Oak Knoll Ave
TEV: 3,803
PHF: 0.94
315
0 44
359
360
0 78
1,769
0 1,847
1,359
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1,315
282
1,597
2,084
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Driveway Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 9 0
7:15 AM 0 2 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 3 3 0 0 0 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
12 0
7:30 AM 0 2 2 0 0 0 4
0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 1 9 0
7:45 AM 0 1 7 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 7 38
8:15 AM 0 1 5 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
10 40
8:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 34
8:30 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 6
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 6 0 0 0
0 0 1 9 34
8:45 AM 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 11 35
0 0 9 75 0
Peak Hour 0 3 15 0
Count Total 0 11 25 0 0 0 28 2 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
34 0
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Driveway Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
3 8:00 AM
0 0 0 1
2 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
1 2
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
3 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 2 6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
2 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 3 0 0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 1
2 1
4 0
0 1
9 5
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.7% 0.92
TOTAL 0.5% 0.96
TH RT
WB 0.5% 0.91
NB 0.0% 0.50
Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.4% 0.95

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Driveway Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 296 18 0 0
33 0 69 834 0
4:15 PM 0 55 413 0
4:00 PM 0 43 383 0 0 0 290 15 0 0 0 1 0
28 0 70 911 0
4:45 PM 1 42 463 2
10 0 0 0 0 0
896 0
4:30 PM 0 49 409 0 0 0 345
0 0 0 33 0 81
888 3,529
5:00 PM 0 60 404 0 0 0 386
0 0 274 15 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 69
0 0 327 21 0 0
34 0 73 967 3,662
5:15 PM 0 43 387 0
9 0 0 0 1 0
31 0 81 986 3,742
5:45 PM 0 52 432 0
14 0 0 0 0 0
901 3,667
5:30 PM 0 51 418 1 0 0 390
0 1 0 40 0 82
0 0 314 15 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 87 920 3,774
Count Total 1 395 3,309 3 0 0 2,622 241 0 612 7,303 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 206 1,641
117 0 0 0 3 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 18 0
323 3,774 0
HV 0 2 6 0 0 0
1 0 0 1,417 59 0 0 0 2 0 125 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 1% 0% 0% - - 0% 0% - - - 0% - 1% - 1% 0%
0 0
4:15 PM 5 2 0 0 7 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 3 2 0 1 6 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 4 0 0 1 5
0 1 0 0 1 1
1 4:30 PM 1 5 0 1 7 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4
5:15 PM 1 2 0 1 4 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0
5:00 PM 2 1 0 1 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 2 3 0 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:30 PM 3 1 0 1 5 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
3 6
Peak Hour 8 7 0 3 18 0 0
Count Total 21 16 0 6 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 4
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
1 4
0 0
N
Oak Knoll Ave
Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr
Driveway
Huntington Dr Oak Knoll Ave
TEV: 3,774
PHF: 0.96
323
0 125
448
265
0 59
1,417
0 1,476
1,768
0 0
0 2
1 2
0 1
1,641
206
1,848
1,740
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Driveway Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 1 6 0
4:15 PM 0 2 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
7 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 7 0
4:45 PM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 4 23
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 25
5:00 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1
4 20
5:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 1
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 1 5 18
5:45 PM 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 5 18
2 0 4 43 0
Peak Hour 0 2 6 0
Count Total 0 4 17 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
18 0
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr Driveway Oak Knoll Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 5:00 PM
0 0 0 0
1 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
1 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
4 2
5 5
6 1
2 3
28 14
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 2.7% 0.78
TOTAL 0.9% 0.93
TH RT
WB 0.7% 0.90
NB 0.5% 0.81
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.1% 0.89

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 1 405 9 0 22
2 5 0 704 0
7:15 AM 0 19 204 3
7:00 AM 1 16 173 2 0 1 436 4 0 26 36 2 0
5 9 2 877 0
7:45 AM 0 32 327 5
4 0 30 49 2 0
734 0
7:30 AM 0 28 266 2 0 2 478
57 3 0 2 4 5
923 3,238
8:00 AM 2 38 261 2 0 5 397
0 5 400 6 0 46 64 7 0 7 17 7
0 5 423 6 0 39
9 9 7 811 3,345
8:15 AM 0 52 327 8
2 0 26 52 1 0
7 5 8 889 3,591
8:45 AM 1 38 245 5
7 0 24 44 5 0
968 3,579
8:30 AM 2 40 274 3 1 4 465
67 5 0 12 16 8
1 6 372 5 0 18 43 3 0 7 13 8 765 3,433
Count Total 6 263 2,077 30 2 29 3,376 51 78 45 6,671 0
Peak
Hour
All 4 162 1,189
43 0 231 412 28 0
12 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 32 0
30 3,591 0
HV 0 2 13 0 0 0
18 1 19 1,685 21 0 135 227 18 0 35 47
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% - 1% 0% 0% - 9% 0% 0% 1%
0 1
7:15 AM 2 4 0 0 6 1 0
0 0 1 2 2 1
West North South
7:00 AM 4 4 0 0 8 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 6 2 1 0 9
1 2 1 0 2 2
1 7:30 AM 2 6 0 0 8 0 1 0
1 1 3 1 0 0
1 2
8:15 AM 5 2 0 2 9 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 1
3 0 2
8:00 AM 3 2 1 0 6 0
1 1 0 0 2 0
8:45 AM 2 5 1 2 10
0 1 0 1 0 1
0 8:30 AM 1 6 0 1 8 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2
3 11
Peak Hour 15 12 2 3 32 1 1
Count Total 25 31 3 5 64 3 2 2 4 11 8 6
1 0 3 3 5 1 5
0 1
0 0
00 01
0 0
1 0
1 5
5 3
N
St Albans Rd
Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr
St Albans Rd
Huntington Dr St Albans Rd
TEV: 3,591
PHF: 0.93
30 47
35 112
410
0 21
1,685
19 1,726
1,243
1 18
135
227
84 380
0 18
1,189
162
1,373
1,854
4 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 8 0
7:15 AM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 4 0 0 0 4

UT LT TH RT UT LT
6 0
7:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 5
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 8 0
7:45 AM 0 1 5 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 29
8:15 AM 0 1 4 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
9 31
8:00 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2
1 0 0 0 0 0
9 32
8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 4 1 0 1
1 0 0 8 32
8:45 AM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 10 33
5 0 0 64 0
Peak Hour 0 2 13 0
Count Total 0 2 23 0 0 0 29 2 0 2 1 0 0
7:00 AM 2 0
RT
32 0
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 12 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
9 8:00 AM
0 0 0 2
2 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3
1 0
0 1 0
1 3
8:45 AM
0 1 0 0
4 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Peak Hour
Count Total 3 0
0 LT TH
0 1 0 0 0 0 3
0 2 0 1 11 0
0 0
1 0
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1 0
1 2 0 0 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
4 1
3 1
2 2
13 7
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.0% 0.81
TOTAL 0.4% 0.97
TH RT
WB 0.4% 0.90
NB 0.0% 0.87
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.5% 0.94

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
1 2 308 3 0 11
11 35 5 810 0
4:15 PM 0 14 400 12
4:00 PM 3 10 420 8 1 3 288 1 0 11 13 1 0
8 33 13 808 0
4:45 PM 1 11 468 15
2 0 6 12 1 0
837 0
4:30 PM 1 10 416 10 0 6 290
12 4 0 14 47 9
884 3,339
5:00 PM 1 7 452 14 0 2 347
4 6 296 4 0 8 17 2 0 7 39 6
0 5 383 6 0 8
11 31 14 899 3,428
5:15 PM 2 14 384 17
3 0 7 9 1 0
8 52 20 944 3,650
5:45 PM 1 13 431 11
3 0 9 18 2 0
923 3,514
5:30 PM 1 13 444 20 1 2 351
20 0 0 12 46 26
3 3 313 5 0 5 22 4 0 9 44 15 879 3,645
Count Total 10 92 3,415 107 10 29 2,576 80 327 108 6,984 0 Peak
Hour
All 5 45 1,748
27 0 65 123 15 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0
66 3,650 0
HV 0 1 8 0 0 0
66 5 15 1,377 16 0 32 64 5 0 38 168
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0%
0 0
4:15 PM 4 2 0 0 6 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 2 2 0 0 4 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 3 0 0 0 3
0 1 0 0 1 3
0 4:30 PM 2 5 0 0 7 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3
5:15 PM 1 2 0 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:00 PM 2 2 0 0 4 0
1 0 0 1 2 1
5:45 PM 2 2 0 0 4
0 0 0 1 0 1
1 5:30 PM 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
1 8
Peak Hour 9 6 0 0 15 1 0
Count Total 19 17 0 0 36 2 0 0 1 3 2 2
0 1 2 1 1 0 5
0 1
0 0
01 00
0 0
0 0
0 5
1 1
N
St Albans Rd
Huntington Dr
Huntington Dr
St Albans Rd
Huntington Dr St Albans Rd
TEV: 3,650
PHF: 0.97
66 168
38 272
125
0 16
1,377
15 1,413
1,796
5 5
32 64
249
101
0 66
1,748
45 1,864
1,480
5 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 4 0
4:15 PM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
6 0
4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 5
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 7 0
4:45 PM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 20
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
3 20
5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 17
5:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 15
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16
0 0 0 36 0
Peak Hour 0 1 8 0
Count Total 0 1 18 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
15 0
Interval
Start
Huntington Dr Huntington Dr St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
3 5:00 PM
0 0 0 2
1 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 2
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
3 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 1 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 1 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
6 3
2 9
6 3
6 4
39 20
Date: 11-07-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 0.0% 0.90
TOTAL 0.3% 0.89
TH RT
WB 0.0% 0.93
NB 0.7% 0.87
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.0% 0.69

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Lorain Rd Lorain Rd St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 11 17 0 6
0 8 0 94 0
7:15 AM 0 3 2 5
7:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 2 18 6 0 7 51 0 0
3 8 2 137 0
7:45 AM 0 1 15 1
19 0 8 62 0 0
110 0
7:30 AM 0 0 12 2 0 1 20
58 1 0 1 6 0
163 504
8:00 AM 0 2 5 2 0 1 26
0 0 22 19 0 11 75 2 0 8 9 0
0 0 23 18 0 3
1 12 2 147 557
8:15 AM 0 1 4 2
18 0 6 72 0 0
0 7 0 111 555
8:45 AM 0 1 4 4
12 0 8 56 2 0
134 581
8:30 AM 0 0 3 1 0 1 21
64 3 0 4 11 1
0 1 13 9 0 5 41 0 0 3 10 2 93 485
Count Total 0 8 46 18 0 6 154 20 71 7 989 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 4 36
118 0 54 479 8 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
5 581 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 2 91 74 0 28 273 5 0 16 40
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 0%
2 3
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 1 0 1 0
1 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 1
2 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0
0 0 8
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0
3 0 0 0 3 1
8:45 AM 0 1 1 0 2
0 1 1 1 3 1
1 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
10 16
Peak Hour 0 0 2 0 2 3 0
Count Total 0 1 3 0 4 3 0 1 0 4 9 4
0 0 3 6 1 3 10
0 3
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
3 10
1 6
N
St Albans Rd
Lorain Rd
Lorain Rd
St Albans Rd
Lorain Rd
St Albans Rd
TEV: 581
PHF: 0.89
5 40
16 61
351
0 74
91 2
167
57 0
5 273
28 49
306
0 7
36 4
47 124
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Lorain Rd Lorain Rd St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 2
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
1 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 2
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
0 0 0 4 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
2 0
Interval
Start
Lorain Rd Lorain Rd St Albans Rd St Albans Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
3 8:00 AM
0 0 0 3
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 4
8:45 AM
0 1 0 0
3 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 1 0 0 4 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0 0
0 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]