San Mateo City Council
December 1, 2022

RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
indicated no new or additional information that would indicate further governmental oversight was necessary. Accordingly, the listing should be considered historical, because there are no continuing or ongoing concerns in regard to the issues that gave rise to the initial Cortese listing, and because written regulatory closure was issued in regard to the environmental condition of the Subject Site.

2. Do site soil and groundwater conditions pose a risk to human health and the environment, including construction workers and nearby residences, from proposed construction activity that would excavate to a depth of 25 below grade and off-haul 25,828 CY of soil? Based on RMD’s 2021 subsurface investigation data, soil and groundwater do not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment in relation to proposed construction activities, including with respect to construction workers and in regard to nearby residential use. In RMD’s July 2021 report, soil and groundwater data collected were compared to San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Tier 1 ESLs are the most conservative screening levels considering all exposure pathways and exposure point scenarios, which include construction workers and residential receptors. Evaluation of soil and groundwater data against screening levels is summarized as follows:

Soil: As documented in the Report, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the gasoline range (TPHg) and in the diesel range (TPHd), along with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals were reported at concentrations in soil at levels that were all below Tier 1 ESLs or naturally-occurring regional background levels1. Furthermore, none of the reported concentrations exceeded threshold concentrations that would indicate the soil would be classified as a hazardous waste, including for purposes of off-site disposal.

In conclusion, soil conditions at the Subject Site do not pose a significant risk to human health or to the environment. That being said, a Construction Site Management Plan (SMP) will be prepared for the Subject Site that will include contingency measures and protocol in the event that a localized area of contamination or subsurface feature is unearthed during excavation activities. Further details are described below in Item 3. 1 Arsenic and vanadium were reported above Tier 1 ESLs however were less than the concentration of naturally occurring levels in bay area soil. Because soil throughout the State of California has naturallyoccurring metals levels above these ESLs, governmental agencies in California use the naturally-occurring regional background levels – as opposed to the ESLs – as the applicable standard for these metals. 887 of 1252
Mr. Gilmore
October 14, 2022

RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

Groundwater: As documented in the Report, total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd) and chloroform were the only two constituents with concentrations reported above Tier 1 ESLs.
• Chloroform: The maximum concentration of chloroform reported is 3.67 µg/L compared to the Tier 1 ESL of 0.81 µg/L. The Tier 1 ESL is based on a groundwater concentration that is protective of the vapor intrusion into indoor air exposure pathway. This exposure pathway is not a complete exposure pathway for the construction workers that will be performing work outdoors or nearby residents that are located off-site. Although there is a potential for VOCs (which includes chloroform) to volatilize into outdoor air during construction activities, inhalation of VOCs in outdoor air is considered negligible for on-site and off-site receptors due to complete and virtually immediate dispersion in ambient air.

The low-level chloroform concentration is likely attributed to potable water (as a result of chlorination of organic matter present in raw water supplies). The maximum concentration of chloroform reported in groundwater is well below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 80 µg/L. Considering that groundwater will not be used for potable water purposes, the maximum concentration of chloroform is well below the ESLs based on gross contamination and odor nuisance levels for non-drinking water of 50,000 µg/L and 24,000 µg/L, respectively. Table 1 provides values of ESLs for chloroform for non-drinking water exposure.
• TPHd: The maximum concentration of TPHd reported is 353 µg/L compared to the Tier 1 ESL of 100 µg/L. The Tier 1 ESL is based on odor nuisance levels for drinking water, and this standard is not relevant for project construction or operation because the groundwater will not be used for potable water purposes.

Table 1 provides values of ESLs for TPHd for non-drinking water exposure. As shown, the lowest ESL is 2,500 µg/L which is based on SFBRWQCB’s gross contamination non-drinking water screening level for TPHd. The reported value of 353 µg/L beneath the Site is an order of magnitude below the ESL and not considered a significant risk.

In conclusion, groundwater conditions do not represent a concern or pose any significant risk to human health or the environment.
888 of 1252
Mr. Gilmore
October 14, 2022

RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

3. Is regulatory oversight of construction activity required and what measures, if any, are needed during construction to protect workers and nearby residents from exposure to any site contamination likely to be released during construction? As confirmed by Mr. Jacob Madden of San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program, the Subject Site is not a significant concern with regard to residual contamination. However, the County may require a Construction Soil Management Plan (SMP), as yet to be discussed and determined during the County’s review of the project.

The SMP would be used as a guidance document for handling impacted soil and groundwater, if encountered, during construction activities. Under the SMP, notification to San Mateo County will be required in the event that an unanticipated condition is encountered during site grading (e.g., a localized area of contamination or an underground structure).

The SMP would identify required soil and groundwater management measures typical of construction projects throughout this County and the State of California. These would include standard dust control measures (e.g., keeping soil moist during excavation and loading) and compliance with the City of San Mateo’s municipal stormwater permit and related discharge permits during dewatering activities. The need for groundwater treatment prior to discharge will be determined during the required Application for Groundwater Waste Discharge Permit through the City of San Mateo Public Works Department.

The requirements that will be specified in the SMP are standard practice for the construction industry. No augmented mitigation measures beyond standard construction standards and permit requirements are needed based on known conditions to in order protect construction workers or the residents during project construction. 889 of 1252
Mr. Gilmore
October 14, 2022

RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

No further site characterization or testing is recommended by RMD prior to construction for planning purposes. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Kirsten Duey at (925) 683-8177 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
RMD ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

Kirsten Duey
Principal Engineer
.
890 of 1252
Table 1
Summary of Grab Groundwater Analytical Results - TPH and Detected VOCs 222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, California

Boring ID TPHg TPHd Note 2 TPHmo Note 3 Benzene Chloroform (feet bgs) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
-- -- -- 0.42 0.81
5,000 5,000 -- 20,000 24,000
50,000 2,500 -- 50,000 50,000
SB-02 22 - 32 3/18/2021 ND<100 ND<100 245.2 J 0.111 J J3 J6 3.67 J3 J6 SB-11 33 - 43 3/18/2021 ND<100 353 367 ND<0.500 0.571
Notes:

NDW = Non-drinking water.
1 Values represent the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-San Francisco Bay Region Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs; SFBRWQCB, 2019).

Note 2 TPHd data shown represents laboratory results for carbon range C12-C22 hydrocarbons.

Note 3 TPHmo data shown represents laboratory results for carbon range C22-C40 hydrocarbons.

SFBRWQCB ESL = San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds.

TPHg = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline.

TPHd = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel.

TPHmo = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as motor oil.
µg/L = Micrograms per liter.

ND<0.500 = Not detected above noted laboratory reporting limit. "--" = No Value Established.

J = Estimated value.

J3 = The associated batch QC was outside the established quality control range for precision.

J6 = The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is low.

Boring ID Date Sampled
Residential Groundwater SL - Vapor Intrusion 1
Groundwater SL - Odor Nuisance NDW 1
Gross Contamination SL 1
891 of 1252
Date: October 20, 2022
Project No.: 118-141-1
Prepared For: Mr. Connor Tutino
DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 400
Oakland, California 94612
Re: Environmental Document Review
200-222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, California
Dear Mr. Tutino:

Per your request, Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. (Cornerstone) is pleased to present this letter summarizing our review of the provided environmental reports for 200-222 East 4th Avenue in San Mateo, California (Site). This letter was prepared for David J. Powers & Associates (Powers) in accordance with our October 19, 2022 agreement (Agreement).

Project Background
We understand that Powers is providing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) support associated with the planned redevelopment of the Site. The approximately 1.1-acre Site consists of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 034-176-090, 034-176-080, 034-176-070, and 034-176-050 and currently is developed with an approximately 65,608 square-foot building (two stories with a mezzanine – first floor approximately 35,400 square feet) with one level of below grade parking (approximately 47,365 square feet).

Redevelopment plans reportedly consist of demolition of the existing structure and construction of a five-story, mixed use (office, residential and retail) building with two levels of below-grade parking.

Documents Reviewed
This letter briefly summarizes selected information obtained from the following reports:
 Geosyntec Consultants. May 2, 2019. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 200- 222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California
 RMD Environmental Solution. July 7, 2021. Pre-Construction Site Investigation Report, 222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California.
 RMD Environmental Solution. October 11, 2022a. Pre-Construction Site Investigation Report Conclusions, Further Clarification, 222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California.  RMD Environmental Solution. October 14, 2022b. Pre-Construction Site Investigation Report Conclusions and Responses to City of San Mateo Questions, 222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California.
892 of 1252
118-141-1
200-222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, California

 Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI). June 27, 1996. Closure Report for Property Located at 200 East Fourth Avenue, San Mateo, California.
 County of San Mateo, Environmental Health Services Division. March 12, 1997. Case Closure of Non-LUFT/Surface Soils Site located at 200 E. 4th Street, San Mateo, California.

For complete details, please refer directly to the original reports.

Site History and Prior Studies
Based on the information reviewed, the Site was developed by the late 1800s with several residences and associated outbuildings. By 1927, a gasoline service station was present on the north corner of the Site (East 4th Avenue and South B Street). By 1950, two auto repair/gasoline service stations were present on-Site, one on the north corner and one on the east corner (South B Street and East 5th Avenue). The Levy Brothers leased the Site in 1951, built a department store on the western portion of the Site, and operated the business until 1985. By 1969, the service station on the east corner of the Site was replaced by a parking lot. By 1985, the service station in the north corner of the Site was replaced by a paved parking lot. The existing building was completed in 1997 and has since been occupied by a grocery store and restaurant.

Underground storage tanks (USTs) associated with the former gasoline service station at the north corner of the Site were removed in 1988. Soil sampling was conducted and approximately 335 tons of soil associated with UST removal activities were reported as “excavated”.

In 1993, one hydraulic lift associated with the former gasoline service station at the east corner of the Site was removed. Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil and approximately 20 cubic yards of soil were reported as “removed”.

Soil and groundwater quality studies subsequently were performed at the Site in 1994 by Environmental Geotechnical Consultants (EGC) and in 1995 by EKI. In general, neither of these studies identified significant impacts to soil or groundwater at the Site. The study by EKI included the collection of soil samples from 17 borings and the collection of groundwater samples from eight borings. Low concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd) were detected in a few of the soil and groundwater samples; none of the detected concentrations exceed the current Tier 1 Environmental Screening Level (ESL1 ) for TPHd.

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) were not detected in the soil or groundwater samples. The groundwater samples were additionally analyzed for other chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), none of which were detected.

In 1996, the Levy Brothers Department Store was demolished and construction began on the existing Draeger’s Market building. Construction activities included the excavation of soil for the below grade parking structure, which included excavating the majority of the Site to a depth of approximately 10 feet. Petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil reportedly was encountered on the north potion of the Site during excavation. EKI (1996) stated that soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons appeared to be limited to the upper 6 feet of soil and that soil excavated from the 6 to 10-foot depths did not exhibit obvious indications of petroleum hydrocarbons. Analyses of 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) established by the Water Board (January 2019) are used to screen sites for potential human health concerns where releases of chemicals have occurred. These screening levels are risk-based concentrations derived from standardized equations combining exposure information assumptions with toxicity data. Under most circumstances, the presence of a chemical at concentrations below the corresponding screening level can be assumed not to pose a significant health risk. 893 of 1252
118-141-1
200-222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, California

confirmation soil samples did not detect contaminants at concentrations above their respective Tier 1 ESLs. No underground tanks, sumps, or piping infrastructure were encountered during excavation. Several areas of backfill were encountered in the northeast and southeast corners of the Site, presumably associated with the prior removals of the hydraulic lift and USTs (EKI, 1996).

County of San Mateo, Environmental Health Services Division issued a closure letter in 1997 stating that the Site investigation for the impacted surface soils from past operations at the Site is complete and that no further action related to the surface soils is required.

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Geosyntec in 2019 identified two offSite drycleaning facilities that were considered to have a potential to impact groundwater and/or soil vapor at the Site. These drycleaning facilities were identified by Geosyntec as Recognized Environmental Conditions2
. The former on-Site gasoline station operations were identified by Geosyntec as a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition3 .

In 2021, soil samples were collected from 11 borings advanced by RMD to depths between approximately 14 and 43 feet. Groundwater samples also were collected from two borings.

With regards to soil vapor, RMD (2021) stated that they did not propose collecting soil vapor samples considering 1) the entire site will be excavated for the construction of a 2-level parking garage and 2) it is presumed that the parking garage will be installed with measures to mitigate vapor intrusion concerns (if present), including a waterproof membrane and fresh air intake/circulation.

Composite4 soil samples, each comprised of all samples collected from their respective borings, were analyzed for gasoline, diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs and 17 metals. The number of soil sample aliquots within each composite ranged from 6 to 20. The two groundwater grab samples were analyzed for gasoline, diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons, and VOCs.

None of the detected analytes in the composite soil samples exceeded their respective Tier 1 ESL or, for metals, typical natural background levels. RMD (2021) stated that shallow soil to be exported for off-Site disposal during Site grading is generally expected to meet acceptable criteria for non-hazardous waste characterization.

In groundwater, TPHd was detected at up to 353 micrograms per liter (µg/L), which exceeds the Tier 1 ESL of 100 µg/L. The Tier 1 ESL for TPHd is based on potential odor/nuisance concerns in drinking water. Shallow groundwater at the Site, however, is not used as a drinking water source. Chloroform also was detected in groundwater at up to 3.67 µg/L. The Tier 1 ESL for chloroform in groundwater (based on potential vapor intrusion) is 0.81 µg/L. 2 As defined by ASTM E1527-21, the term Recognized Environmental Condition means 1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; 2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
3 A previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the Site that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory agency without subjecting the Site to any controls.
4 Compositing is the process of physically combining and homogenizing several individual soil aliquots prior to analysis. 894 of 1252
118-141-1
200-222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, California

RMD concluded that the concentration of chloroform reported is relatively low and is likely attributed to potable water (as a result of chlorination of organic matter present in raw water supplies) and is not expected to drive further action.

Additionally, RMD (2021) stated that a regulatory agency may require Lane to delineate or verify the source of the TPHd reported in groundwater, but, in their opinion, active remediation of TPHd in groundwater would not be required given the absence of benzene, naphthalene, or other VOCs in groundwater. RMD (2021) also noted that 1) a soil and groundwater management plan would be required by a regulatory agency during property redevelopment, and 2) in the event that dewatering occurs during property redevelopment, carbon treatment of groundwater would likely be required due to the presence of TPHd prior to discharge to the storm or sanitary sewer drains.

In a subsequent letter (RMD, 2022a), RMD stated that their statement that “a soil and groundwater management plan would be required by a regulatory agency during property development” would only apply for properties that actually have open case files, and would not apply to a site such as the subject Site where there is no need for an open regulatory case file.

However, as a construction industry standard, it is a common best management practice (BMP) for redevelopment of former commercial sites to prepare soil and groundwater management plans. The statement that additional investigation may be required by a regulatory agency is hypothetical and conservative and was not intended to imply that a case opening is warranted or likely. RMD (2022a) also noted that the need for treatment of groundwater associated with dewatering activities during construction would be determined during the required Application for Groundwater Waste Discharge Permit through the City of San Mateo Public Works Department.

In their October 14, 2022 letter, RMD provided their opinion that based on the 2021 subsurface investigation data, soil and groundwater do not pose a significant risk to human health and the environment in relation to proposed construction activities, including with respect to construction workers and in regard to nearby residential use. RMD additionally indicated that a Construction Site Management Plan (SMP) will be prepared for the Site that will be used as a guidance document for handling impacted soil and groundwater, if encountered, during construction activities.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the information obtained during this study, Cornerstone concludes and recommends the following:
 Based on the prior sampling, the Site generally does not appear to have been significantly impacted by past Site occupants or by VOC releases from nearby off-Site drycleaning facilities.

The planned use appears compatible with the known on-Site environmental conditions.  As is common during development of properties with a commercial or industrial history, the preparation of a Site Management Plan (SMP) is recommended to establish appropriate management practices for handling impacted soil or groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities. A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) also should be prepared as required by California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to establish health and safety protocols for construction personnel working at the Site.  If groundwater dewatering activities will be conducted during the planned redevelopment, the need for treatment of groundwater should be determined during the required discharge permitting process. If discharge to the sanitary sewer system is anticipated, a Groundwater 895 of 1252
118-141-1
200-222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, California

Waste Discharge Permit should be obtained from the City of San Mateo Public Works Department. If discharge to the storm sewer system is anticipated, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit should be obtained.  Based on prior studies by EGC (1994), EKI (1995) and RMD (2021), residual contaminant concentrations in Site soil are not expected to exceed their respective ESLs. Note, however, that the composite soil samples analyzed by RMD contained up to 20 sample aliquots, which is uncommon and not consistent with regulatory guidance.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)5 indicates that if samples are composited, they should be from the same soil layer, and that compositing samples for volatile and semi-volatile constituents is not acceptable. The EPA (1995)6 similarly states that compositing is not recommended where volatile compounds are of concern.

The recommended SMP should establish appropriate protocols for profiling of soil to be removed from the Site for off-Site disposal. The profiling protocols should be consistent with regulatory guidance and also meet the requirements of the facility that will be accepting the soil for disposal or reuse.
 We understand that the planned development will include two levels of below grade parking. To reduce the potential for vapor intrusion, we recommend utilizing a dualpurpose waterproofing membrane that provides: 1) required waterproofing protection; 2) chemical degradation protection; and 3) serves as an effective vapor barrier.

Alternatively, soil vapor sampling shall be performed in the building envelop to confirm the presence or absence of VOCs above residential screening levels.

Limitations
Cornerstone performed this investigation to support David J. Powers & Associates in the evaluation of the referenced Site. Conclusions presented in this letter are based on limited, readily available information. This letter, an instrument of professional service, was prepared for the sole use of David J. Powers & Associates and may not be reproduced or distributed without written authorization from Cornerstone. It is valid for 180 days. Cornerstone makes no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services have been performed in accordance with the environmental principles generally accepted at this time and location.

We thank you for this opportunity to work with you on this important project. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience.

Sincerely,
Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Ron L. Helm, C.E.G.

Senior Principal Geologist
5 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). October 2001. Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material. 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1995. Superfund Program Representative Sampling Guidance. 896 of 1252
DRAEGER’S MIXED-USE PROJECT

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
San Mateo, California
October 17, 2022
Prepared for:

Connor Tutino
Associate Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared by:

Carrie J. Janello
Michael S. Thill
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Job No.: 22-036
897 of 1252
1 INTRODUCTION
A five-story mixed-use project is proposed at 222 East 4th Avenue in the City of San Mateo, California. The proposed project would include approximately 104,722 square feet of office space, 17,658 square feet of retail space, 8,971 square feet of residential space, and two levels of belowgrade parking. Construction of the project would include the demolition of the existing on-site improvements.

This report evaluates the project’s potential to result in significant impacts with respect to applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The report is divided into three sections: 1) the Setting Section provides a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and groundborne vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses ambient noise conditions in the project vicinity; 2) the Plan Consistency Analysis section discusses noise and land use compatibility utilizing policies in the City’s General Plan; and, 3) the Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents mitigation measures, where necessary, to mitigate project impacts to a less-than-significant level.

SETTING
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.

In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1.

There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the Aweighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an 898 of 1252
2 average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.

This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.

The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.

Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.

Effects of Noise
Sleep and Speech Interference
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA Ldn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses.

Typical structural attenuation is 12 to 17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57 to 62 dBA Ldn with open windows and 65 to 70 dBA Ldn if the windows are closed.

Levels of 55 to 60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65 to 70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75 to 80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed, those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows. 899 of 1252
3 Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA Ldn. At a Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the population is highly annoyed.

When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25 to 30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between a Ldn of 60 to 70 dBA. Between a Ldn of 70 to 80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 3 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the Ldn is 60 dBA, approximately 30 to 35 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed. 900 of 1252
4 TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing, the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals.

Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level,
Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

L01, L10, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn or DNL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998. 901 of 1252
5 TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013. 902 of 1252
6 Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous or frequent intermittent vibration levels produce. The guidelines in Table 3 represent syntheses of vibration criteria for human response and potential damage to buildings resulting from construction vibration.

Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.

The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to cause damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.

The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.

Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as paint flaking or minimal extension of cracks in building surfaces; minor, including limited surface cracking; or major, that may threaten the structural integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher. The damage criteria presented in Table 3 include several categories for ancient, fragile, and historic structures, the types of structures most at risk to damage. Most buildings are included within the categories ranging from “Historic and some old buildings” to “Modern industrial/commercial buildings”. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.

The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. 903 of 1252
7 TABLE 3 Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.01 Barely perceptible No effect

0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure

0.08 Distinctly perceptible to
strongly perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected

0.1 Strongly perceptible Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to fragile buildings with no risk of damage to most buildings

0.25 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to historic and some old buildings.

0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older residential structures

0.5 Severe - Vibrations considered
unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to new
residential and modern commercial/industrial structures Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020.

Regulatory Background – Noise
This section describes the relevant guidelines, policies, and standards established by State Agencies and the City of San Mateo. The State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below.

State of California
State CEQA Guidelines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project.

Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
904 of 1252
8 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2. The current version of the California Building Code (CBC) requires interior noise levels in multi-family residential units attributable to exterior environmental noise sources to be limited to a level not exceeding 45 dBA DNL/CNEL in any habitable room.
2019 California Building Cal Green Code. The State of California established exterior sound transmission control standards for new non-residential buildings as set forth in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Section 5.507.4.1 and 5.507.4.2). The sections that pertain to this project are as follows:

5.507.4.1 Exterior noise transmission, prescriptive method. Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building envelope shall meet a composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when the building falls within the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour of a freeway or expressway, railroad, industrial source or fixed-guideway noise source, as determined by the local general plan noise element.

5.507.4.2 Performance method. For buildings located, as defined by Section 5.507.4.1, wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building envelope shall be constructed to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq (1-hr)) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hour of operation.

The performance method, which establishes the acceptable interior noise level, is the method typically used when applying these standards.

City of San Mateo
City of San Mateo General Plan: The Noise Element of the City of San Mateo General Plan sets forth goals and policies to control environmental noise and protect citizens from excessive noise exposure. The goals and policies relevant to this project are summarized below:

GOAL 1: Protect “noise sensitive” land uses from excessive noise levels.

POLICIES:

N 1.1: Interior Noise Level Standard. Require submittal of an acoustical analysis and interior noise insulation for all “noise sensitive” land uses listed in Table N-1 that have an exterior noise level of 60 dB (Ldn) or above, as shown on Figure N-1. The maximum interior noise level shall not exceed 45 dB (Ldn) in any habitable rooms.

N 1.2: Exterior Noise Level Standard. Require an acoustical analysis for new parks, play areas, and multi-family common open space (intended for the use and the enjoyment of residents) that have an exterior noise level of 60 dB (Ldn) or above, as shown on Figure N-1. Require an acoustical analysis that uses peak hour Leq for new parks and play areas. Require a feasibility analysis of noise reduction measures for public parks and play areas. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into residential project design to minimize common open 905 of 1252
9 space noise levels. Maximum exterior noise should not exceed 67 dB (Ldn) for residential uses and should not exceed 65 dB (Leq) during the noisiest hour for public park uses.

GOAL 2: Minimize unnecessary, annoying and unhealthful noise.

POLICIES:

N 2.1: Noise Ordinance. Continue implementation and enforcement of City’s existing noise control ordinance: (a) which prohibits noise that is annoying or injurious to neighbors of normal sensitivity, making such activity a public nuisance, and (b) restricts the hours of construction to minimize noise impact.

N 2.2: Minimize Noise Impact. Protect all “noise-sensitive” land uses listed in Tables N-1 and N-2 from adverse impacts caused by noise generated on-site by new developments.

Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into development design to minimize noise impacts. Prohibit long-term exposure increases of 3 dB (Ldn) or greater at the common property line, excluding existing ambient noise levels.

N 2.3: Minimize Commercial Noise. Protect land uses other than those listed as “noise sensitive” in Table N-1 from adverse impacts caused by the on-site noise generated by new developments. Incorporate necessary mitigation measures into development design to minimize noise impacts. Prohibit new uses that generate noise levels of 65 dB (Ldn) or above at the property line, excluding existing ambient noise levels.

N 2.4: Traffic Noise. Recognize projected increases in ambient noise levels resulting from traffic increases. Promote the installation of noise barriers along highways where “noisesensitive” land uses listed in Table N-1 are adversely impacted by unacceptable noise levels [60 dB (Ldn) or above]. Require adequate noise mitigation to be incorporated into the widening of SR 92 and US 101. Accept noise increases on El Camino Real at existing development and require new multi-family development to provide common open space having a maximum exterior noise level of 67 dB (Ldn).
906 of 1252
10 1 These guidelines are derived from the California Department of Health Services, Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan, 2003. The State Guidelines have been modified to reflect San Mateo's preference for distinct noise compatibility categories and to better reflect local land-use and noise conditions.

It is intended that these guidelines be utilized to evaluate the suitability of land-use changes only and not to determine cumulative noise impacts. Land uses other than those classified as being “noise sensitive” are exempt from these compatibility guidelines.
2 Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. 3 Conditionally Acceptable – New construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is conducted and needed noise insulation features included in the design. 4 Normally Unacceptable – New construction should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
* Average Sound Level (Leq) for peak hour.
907 of 1252
11 City of San Mateo Municipal Code: The Noise Regulations of the San Mateo Municipal Code, Chapter 7.30 are set forth to protect the inhabitants of the City against all forms of nuisances.

Section 7.30.040 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels. It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
(1) The noise level standard for that property as specified in Table 7.30.040 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour;
(2) The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour;
(3) The noise level standard plus ten dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;
(4) The noise level standard plus fifteen dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
(5) The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus twenty dB for any period of time.

If the measured ambient level for any area is higher than the standard set in Table 7.30.040, then the ambient shall be the base noise level standard for purposes of this section. In such cases, the noise levels for purposes of subsections (2) through (5) of this section shall be increased in five dB increments above the ambient.

Table 7.30.040: Noise Level Standards
Noise Zone Time Period Noise Level, dBA
Noise Zone 1 10 p.m.--7 a.m. 50
7 a.m.--10 p.m. 60
Noise Zone 2 10 p.m.--7 a.m. 55
7 a.m.--10 p.m. 60
Noise Zone 3 10 p.m.--7 a.m. 60
7 a.m.--10 p.m. 65
Noise Zone 4 Anytime 70
Section 7.30.060 Special Provisions. Construction, alteration, repair, or land development activities authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed at the following times:
• Weekdays: between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
• Saturdays: between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
• Sundays and Holidays: between 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. • Or at other such hours as authorized or restricted by the permit, so long as they meet the following conditions:
908 of 1252
12 1. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet as possible.

2. The noise level outside of any point outside the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA.

Existing Noise Environment
The project site is located to the south of the East 4th Avenue/South B Street intersection in San Mateo, California. A residential building is located southeast of the project site, opposite East 5th Avenue, and existing commercial retail uses are located southwest of the site, opposite South Ellsworth Avenue, northwest of the site, opposite East 4th Avenue, and northeast of the site, opposite South B Street.

The existing noise environment at the site results primarily from local vehicular traffic along East 4th Avenue and the other surrounding roadways. Distant U.S. Highway 101 (Highway 101) traffic noise, train noise from the nearby tracks one block to the northeast, and aircraft associated with the San Francisco International Airport also contribute to the noise environment.

A noise monitoring survey, which included two long-term (LT-1 and LT-2) and two short-term (ST-1 and ST-2) noise measurements, was performed at the site between Tuesday March 22, 2022 and Thursday March 24, 2022. All measurement locations are shown in Figure 1.

Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was made approximately 30 feet southeast of the centerline of East 4th Avenue. Hourly average noise levels at LT-1 typically ranged from 66 to 68 dBA Leq during the day and from 53 to 67 dBA Leq at night. The day-night average noise level (Ldn) for the 24-hour period occurring on Wednesday March 23, 2022 was 70 dBA Ldn. The daily trends in noise levels at LT-1 are shown in Figures A1 through A3 in the Appendix of this report.

Noise measurement LT-2 was made approximately 20 feet northwest of the centerline of East 5th Avenue. Hourly average noise levels at LT-2 typically ranged from 62 to 76 dBA Leq during the day and from 51 to 66 dBA Leq at night. The day-night average noise level (Ldn) for the 24-hour period occurring on Wednesday March 23, 2022 was 69 dBA Ldn. The daily trends in noise levels at LT-2 are shown in Appendix Figures A4 through A6.

Two short-term noise measurements were made on Tuesday March 22, 2022 in 10-minute intervals between 1:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. ST-1 was made approximately 40 feet northeast of the centerline of South Ellsworth Avenue. Contributing noise sources at ST-1 included parking lot noise, traffic along nearby South 4th Avenue, and airplane flyovers. Parking lot activity generated noise levels of 62 to 72 dBA. Traffic noise generated noise levels ranging from 62 to 64 dBA, and airplanes generated noise levels of 58 to 60 dBA. The 10-minute average noise level at ST-1 was 56 dBA Leq(10-min).

ST-2 was made approximately 25 feet southwest of the centerline of South B Street. Major noise sources at ST-2 included local traffic along nearby East 4th Avenue and South B Street and train 909 of 1252
13 noise from the tracks one block northeast of the site. Typical traffic noise ranged from 52 to 54 dBA, while noisy vehicles generated noise levels up to 80 dBA. A train horn generated noise levels ranging from 70 to 72 dBA. The 10-minute average noise level at ST-2 was 64 dBA Leq(10-min).

Table 4 summarizes the results of the 10-minute noise measurements made at ST-1 and ST-2.

TABLE 4 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) Noise Measurement Location
(Date, Time) Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq(10)
ST-1: ~40 feet northeast of the centerline of
South Ellsworth Avenue
(3/22/2022, 1:00-1:10 p.m.)
72 64 58 54 51 56
ST-2: ~25 feet southwest of the centerline of
South B Street (3/22/2022, 1:20-1:30 p.m.) 80 76 66 60 54 64 910 of 1252
14 FIGURE 1 Aerial Image of the Project Site and Surrounding Area, with the Noise Measurement Locations Identified Source: Google Earth, 2022.
911 of 1252
15 PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Noise and Land Use Compatibility
The City of San Mateo General Plan, which is presented in detail in the Regulatory Background section of this report, includes exterior and interior noise thresholds for residential uses. Note, the City’s exterior noise thresholds apply only to common use areas and not private balconies, porches, or patios. Additionally, the State of California establishes acceptable interior noise limits within residential and non-residential land uses. The thresholds that apply to the proposed project are summarized below:
• Policy N 1.2 and Table N-1 of the City’s General Plan identifies exterior noise thresholds of 59 dBA Ldn or below as “normally acceptable” for multi-family residential uses; however, the policy further states that common open spaces at multi-family residential buildings intended for the use and enjoyment of residents would be limited to a maximum allowable noise level of 67 dBA Ldn.
• The City and State’s acceptable interior noise level standard is 45 dBA Ldn or less for the proposed residential land uses.
• The Cal Green Code standards specify an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources not to exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq (1-hr)) of 50 dBA in occupied areas of nonresidential uses during any hour of operation.

The future noise environment at the site would continue to result primarily from vehicular traffic along nearby roadways. The traffic study completed for the proposed project included average daily traffic (ADT) turning movements for five intersections in the project vicinity. Comparing the ADT volumes for the cumulative plus project scenario to the existing ADT volumes, the future traffic noise level increase experienced at the project site would be up to 2 dBA Ldn along East 4th Avenue and up to 1 dBA Ldn along East 5th Avenue with the inclusion of the proposed project.

Future Exterior Noise Environment
The site plan shows a community open space area and outdoor dining area, which would be affiliated with ground-level retail, on the first floor. Office terraces are shown on levels three and four, and an office roof deck is shown on level five. A common use outdoor area associated with the residential component of the proposed project is also shown on level five.

Residential Land Uses
The residential common use area is proposed along the building façade facing South B Street. The center of the common use area would be set back approximately 75 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Due to the height of the common use area and the setback from the edge of the building, the attenuation at the center of the common use area, which is where the majority of the extended use would occur, would be about 20 dBA. Therefore, the future exterior noise levels at the center of the fifth-floor common use area would be below 60 dBA Ldn. This would be compatible with the City’s 67 dBA Ldn threshold for residential uses.
912 of 1252
16 Office and Commercial Retail Land Uses
While the City does not define exterior noise thresholds for office and retail uses, other cities in the Bay Area typically limit exterior noise levels at these types of uses to 70 dBA Ldn. For purposes of this report, 70 dBA Ldn is used as the exterior noise threshold for offices and commercial retail uses.

The office balcony on level three stretches along the building façades facing South Ellsworth Avenue, East 4th Street, and South B Street. The center of the third level terrace would be set back 50 feet from the centerline of South Ellsworth Avenue and South B Street and about 60 feet from the centerline of East 4th Street. The elevation and setback of the center of the third-floor office terrace would result in attenuation of about 15 dBA. The future exterior noise levels at the thirdfloor office terrace would be below 70 dBA Ldn.

The fourth-floor office terrace is located in the westernmost corner of the building, with the center set back approximately 80 feet from the centerline of South Ellsworth Avenue and approximately 100 feet from the centerline of East 4th Street. At these distances and at a higher elevation than the third-floor office terrace, the noise attenuation at the center of this terrace would be more than 15 dBA. The future exterior noise levels at the fourth-floor office terrace would be below 70 dBA Ldn.

The fifth-floor roof deck associated with the office use component of the proposed project would be located along the building façades facing East 4th Avenue and South Ellsworth Avenue, with the center set back 80 and 75 feet, respectively. Due to these setbacks and the elevation of the fifth floor, the roof deck would experience noise attenuation of up to 20 dBA. The future exterior noise levels at the fourth-floor office terrace would be below 70 dBA Ldn.

The ground-level outdoor seating area and common open space area are located at the intersection of South Ellsworth Avenue and East 4th Street. The center of this area would be set back from the centerlines of these roadways by approximately 65 feet from the centerline of South Ellsworth Avenue and approximately 75 feet from the centerline of East 4th Street. The building would provide partial shielding for this area. Assuming partial shielding, the future exterior noise levels at the ground-level outdoor seating area and common open space would be below 70 dBA Ldn.

The common use outdoor areas associated with the office and commercial retail uses would be compatible with the future noise environment at the project site.

Future Interior Noise Environment

Residential Land Uses
Standard residential construction provides approximately 15 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise reduction, assuming the windows are partially open for ventilation. Standard construction with the windows closed provides approximately 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. Where exterior noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA Ldn, the inclusion of adequate forced-air mechanical ventilation is often the method selected to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable levels by closing the windows to control noise. Where noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn, forced-air mechanical ventilation systems and sound-rated construction methods are normally required. Such 913 of 1252
17 methods or materials may include a combination of smaller window and door sizes as a percentage of the total building façade facing the noise source, sound-rated windows and doors, sound rated exterior wall assemblies, and mechanical ventilation so windows may be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion.

Residential units are located on level five of the proposed building along the façades facing South B Street and East 5th Avenue. The setbacks of these units would be approximately 85 feet from the centerline of South B Street and approximately 60 feet from the centerline of East 5th Avenue. At these distances, the residential units would be exposed to future exterior noise levels ranging from 65 to 68 dBA Ldn. Assuming windows to be partially open, future interior noise levels in these units would range from 50 to 53 dBA Ldn.

To meet the City and State’s interior noise requirement of 45 dBA Ldn, implementation of noise insulation features would be required.

Office and Commercial Retail Land Uses
Offices and commercial retail would be located on levels one through four, with setbacks from the centerlines of the surrounding roadways of approximately 55 feet from East 4th Avenue, 30 feet from East 5th Avenue, and 40 to 45 feet from South Ellsworth Avenue and South B Street. At these distances, daytime hourly average noise levels would range from 61 to 75 dBA Leq, with day-night average noise levels up to 69 dBA Ldn.

Standard construction materials for offices and commercial retail uses would provide about 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. The inclusion of adequate forced-air mechanical ventilation systems is normally required so that windows may be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion and would provide an additional 5 dBA reduction. The standard construction materials in combination with forced-air mechanical ventilation would satisfy the daytime threshold of 50 dBA Leq(1-hr)
Spaces where lower noise levels would be desired, such as private offices and conference rooms, may benefit from additional noise control in order to meet a lower, more desirable interior noise level. Additional noise control could be accomplished by selecting higher sound-rated windows (STC 34 or greater along exterior façades).

Noise Insulation Features to Reduce Future Interior Noise Levels The following noise insulation features shall be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or less at residential interiors:
• Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local building official, for all residential units on the project site, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards.
914 of 1252
18 • Preliminary calculations indicate that all residential units would require windows and doors with a minimum rating of 30 STC with adequate forced-air mechanical ventilation to meet the interior noise threshold of 45 dBA Ldn.

The implementation of these noise insulation features would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or less at residential uses.

Conditions of Approval
Interior Noise Standard for Residential Development. The project applicant shall prepare final design plans that incorporate building design and acoustical treatments to ensure compliance with State Building Codes and City noise standards. A project-specific acoustical analysis shall be prepared to ensure that the design incorporates controls to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or lower within the residential unit and to 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) or lower within nonresidential interiors. The project applicant shall conform with any special building construction techniques requested by the City’s Building Department, which may include sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall constructions, and acoustical caulking.

NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts under CEQA, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Significance Criteria
The following criteria were used to evaluate the significance of environmental noise resulting from the project:
• A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent noise level increase over ambient noise levels at existing noisesensitive receptors surrounding the project site and that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General Plan or Municipal Code at existing noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site.
o A significant noise impact would be identified if construction-related noise would exceed the applicable noise standards presented in the San Mateo Municipal Code. o A significant permanent noise level increase would occur if the project would result in a 3 dBA Ldn or greater.
o A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General Plan or Municipal Code.
915 of 1252
19 • A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would generate excessive vibration levels surrounding receptors. Groundborne vibration levels exceeding

0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in cosmetic damage to normal buildings (see Table 3).
• A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels.

Impact 1a: Temporary Construction Noise. Existing and future noise-sensitive land uses would potentially be exposed to a temporary increase in noise levels excess of the City’s construction noise limits. This is a potentially significant impact.

The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing buildings on the project site. The construction schedule assumed that the earliest possible start date would be early March 2023, with an estimated completion date of mid of November 2024. Construction phases would include demolition, site preparation, grading/excavation, trenching, building construction, and paving.

During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating.

Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.

Section 7.30.060 of the City of San Mateo’s Municipal Code limits construction to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and Sundays and holidays between 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Additionally, the City specifies that no individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet and that the noise level outside any point outside the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dBA.

Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. The hauling of excavated materials and construction materials would generate truck trips on local roadways, as well. For the proposed project, pile driving, which generates excessive noise levels, is not expected. The typical range of maximum instantaneous noise levels for the proposed project would be 70 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet (see Table 5) from the equipment. Table 6 shows the hourly average noise level ranges, by construction phase, typical for various types of projects. Hourly average noise levels generated by construction are about 72 to 88 dBA Leq for mixed-use buildings, measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of a busy construction site. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors. 916 of 1252
20 Equipment expected to be used in each construction phase are summarized in Table 7, along with the quantity of each type of equipment and the reference noise level at 50 feet, assuming the operation of the two loudest pieces of construction equipment for each construction phase.

Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, assuming the two loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously, as recommended by the FTA for construction noise evaluations. This construction noise model includes representative sound levels for the most common types of construction equipment and the approximate usage factors of such equipment that were developed based on an extensive database of information gathered during the construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts (CA/T Project or "Big Dig"). The usage factors represent the percentage of time that the equipment would be operating at full power.

Noise levels calculated at 50 feet in Table 7 were propagated from the geometrical center of the project site to the receiving property lines of existing noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the site. The construction noise levels at the receiving property lines are summarized in Table 8. Noise levels in Table 8 do not assume reductions due to intervening buildings or existing barriers. Note, the existing commercial buildings northeast of the project site, opposite South B Street, would be demolished under future conditions. A project currently in the application process proposes a mixed-use building with affordable housing residential units and an office/retail building. For purposes of this project, the receptors expected under the proposed project are assumed to exist by the time the Draegers Mixed-Use project is under construction. These are denoted as future receptors.
917 of 1252
21 TABLE 5 Construction Equipment 50-Foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous Arc Welder
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Bar Bender
Boring Jack Power Unit
Chain Saw
Compressor3
Compressor (other)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Concrete Vibrator
Crane
Dozer
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator
Generator (25 KVA or less)
Gradall
Grader
Grinder Saw
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack
Hydra Break Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Insitu Soil Sampling Rig
Jackhammer
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Pumps
Rock Drill
Scraper
Slurry Trenching Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Street Sweeper
Tractor
Truck (dump, delivery)
Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck)
Vibratory Compactor
Vibratory Pile Driver
All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP
73 85
80 80
80 85
70 80
85 82
90 80
85 85
85 80
82 70
85 85
85 80
90 105
84 85
90 85
85 77
85 85
82 80
80 84
84 85
80 95
85 Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Notes: 1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation.
3 Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi. 918 of 1252
22 TABLE 6 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, Leq (dBA) Domestic Housing
Office Building,
Hotel, Hospital,
School, Public
Works
Industrial Parking
Garage, Religious
Amusement &
Recreations, Store,
Service Station
Public Works
Roads & Highways,
Sewers, and
Trenches

I II I II I II I II
Ground
Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site.

II - Minimum required equipment present at site.

Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.

TABLE 7 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at a Distance of 50 feet Phase of Construction Total
Workdays
Construction Equipment
(Quantity)
Estimated Construction
Noise Level at 50 feet
Demolition 26 days
Concrete/Industrial Saw (1)a
Excavator (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) a
85 dBA Leq
Site Preparation 1 day Grader (1)a 81 dBA Leq
Grading/Excavation 71 days
Excavator (1)
Grader (1)a
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) a
Shoring Drill Rig (1)
84 dBA Leq
Trenching/Foundation 55 days Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1) a 80 dBA Leq Building – Structure 245 days
Crane (1)a
Forklift (2)
Aerial Lift (1)a
74 dBA Leq
Building – Exterior 139 days
Crane (1)a
Forklift (2)
Welder (1)a
Aerial Lift (2)
75 dBA Leq
Paving 50 days
Paver (1)a
Paving Equipment (1)a
Roller (1)
83 dBA Leq
a Denotes two loudest pieces of construction equipment per phase. 919 of 1252
23 TABLE 8 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Receiving Property Lines Phase of Construction
Calculated Hourly Average Noise Levels, Leq (dBA)
Southeast Residences
(90ft)
Southwest
Commercial (125ft)
Northwest
Commercial (175ft)
Future Northeast
Residential/
Commercial (125ft)
Demolition 73 dBA Leq 74 dBA Leq 73 dBA Leq 74 dBA Leq
Site Preparation 70 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq Grading/Excavation 72 dBA Leq 73 dBA Leq 72 dBA Leq 73 dBA Leq Trenching/Foundation 69 dBA Leq 69 dBA Leq 69 dBA Leq 69 dBA Leq Building – Structure 63 dBA Leq 63 dBA Leq 63 dBA Leq 63 dBA Leq Building – Exterior 63 dBA Leq 64 dBA Leq 63 dBA Leq 64 dBA Leq Paving 72 dBA Leq 72 dBA Leq 72 dBA Leq 73 dBA Leq
920 of 1252
24 As shown in Tables 7 and 8, construction noise levels would intermittently range from 74 to 85 dBA Leq when activities occur approximately 50 feet from nearby receptors and would typically range from 63 to 74 dBA Leq when focused near the center of the site. Individual pieces of equipment could potentially exceed the City’s 90 dBA noise limit at a distance of 25 feet. This is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 1a:

Modification, placement, and operation of construction equipment are possible means for minimizing the impact of construction noise on existing sensitive receptors. Construction equipment should be well-maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as possible. Additionally, construction activities for the proposed project should include the following best management practices to reduce noise from construction activities near sensitive land uses:
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Use of exceptionally loud equipment such as jackhammers and concrete saws within 35 feet of shared property lines shall be limited, as feasible. • All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited. If necessary, idling of internal combustion engines shall be limited to 5 minutes. • Stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors and property lines.

If they must be located within 35 feet of receptors and property lines, adequate muffling (with barriers or enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors to 90 dBA. All temporary barriers used shall be eight feet in height at minimum, continuous from grade to top, with no cracks or gaps, and have a minimum surface density of three pounds per square foot (e.g., one-inch thick wood fence boards).
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
• The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plana identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
921 of 1252
25 • Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

Implementation of the above best management practices would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site, limit construction hours, and minimize disruption and annoyance. With the implementation of these measures and recognizing that noise generated by construction activities would occur over a temporary period, the impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level.

Impact 1b: Permanent Noise Level Increase/Exceed Applicable Standards. The proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent noise level increase or exceed applicable standards at the noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. This is a less-than-significant impact.

According to Policy N2.2 of the City’s General Plan, a significant permanent noise increase would occur at existing noise-sensitive receptors if a new development results in a permanent noise increase of 3 dBA Ldn or greater.

Policy N2.3 limits new commercial developments from generating noise levels of 65 dBA Ldn or greater at the property line, excluding existing ambient noise levels. Additionally, operational noise is limited to the noise levels specified in Table 7.30.040, adjusted for ambient conditions. Maximum permissible noise levels for sources operating more than 30 minutes in a given hour for residences would be that of Zone 1: 50 dBA during nighttime hours (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) and 60 dBA during daytime hours (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.). Maximum permissible noise levels for noise sources operating more than 30 minutes in a given hour for offices and commercial uses would be that of Zone 2: 55 dBA during nighttime hours and 60 dBA during daytime hours. For noise sources operating more than 15 minutes in a given hour, 5 dBA would be added to these thresholds. Noise sources operating more than five minutes in a given hour would have thresholds 10 dBA above these levels, and noise sources operating more than one minute in a given hour would have thresholds 15 dBA above these levels.

The Municipal Code also states that ambient noise levels would be used if existing ambient noise levels exceed the Municipal Code limits. The measured hourly average noise levels during daytime hours ranged from 62 to 76 dBA Leq (average of 65 dBA Leq) and from 51 to 66 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (average of 59 dBA Leq) along East 5th Avenue, which would represent the ambient environment at the existing residential receptors located opposite East 5th Avenue from the project site. Hourly average noise levels during daytime hours ranged from 66 to 68 dBA Leq (average of 67 dBA Leq) and from 53 to 67 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (average of 61 dBA Leq) along East 4th Avenue, which would represent ambient conditions of existing commercial receptors opposite East 4th Avenue and opposite South Ellsworth Avenue from the project site, as well as the future residential/commercial receptors opposite South B Street. Since the average hourly average noise levels measured in the project vicinity during daytime and nighttime hours exceed the Municipal Code thresholds, the measured average noise levels will be used as the baseline 922 of 1252
26 threshold for activities occurring more than 30 minutes in a given hour to conservatively assess the significance of the project’s operational noise. Where appropriate, the proper increase will be applied.

Project Traffic Increase
The traffic study included average daily traffic (ADT) along five roadway segments in the project site vicinity for the existing traffic volumes and project volumes. By adding the project volumes to the existing scenario, the existing plus project volumes were calculated and compared to the existing traffic volumes to estimate the project’s contribution to the overall noise level increase.

Along each roadway segment in the project vicinity, the overall noise level increase was determined to be 1 dBA Ldn along East 5th Avenue and less than 1 dBA Ldn along all other roadway segments. Therefore, project traffic would not result in a permanent noise increase of 3 dBA Ldn or more at noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Mechanical Equipment
The site plan shows a pump room, electrical room, and a transformer room on the ground-level of the proposed building along the southwestern façade. A mechanical penthouse is shown on level five in the southwestern portion of the building. The equipment located in the mechanical yard would include variable refrigerant flow (VRF) heat pump systems, exhaust vents, and make up air units (similar to air handling or heating, ventilation, air conditioning [HVAC] units) for the office uses, commercial retail uses, and garage. Solar panels are also shown along the southeastern façade of level five. The rooftop would include residential HVAC units. For all these units, continuous 24- hour operation would represent worst-case conditions; therefore, the hourly average threshold based on average ambient noise levels would be 65 dBA during daytime hours and 59 dBA during nighttime hours for the existing residences to the southeast and would be 67 dBA during daytime hours and 61 dBA during nighttime hours for all other receptors surrounding the site.

Additionally, a generator room is shown on level B1 of the below-grade parking garage. Since the generator room would be located underground, noise levels generated by the emergency generator would be well shielded and below ambient conditions during monthly testing, which typically runs for one continuous hour. For all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to emergency generator noise would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).

Transformers ranging from 37.5 to 112.5 kVA are proposed at the building. For transformers up to 1,000 kVA, noise levels up to 64 dB are generated at a distance of 1 meter (3.28 feet). Assuming up to three transformers run simultaneously, the combined noise level would be 69 dBA. Under worstcase conditions, these units are assumed to run continuously during daytime and nighttime hours, generating day-night average noise level up to 75 dBA Ldn at a distance of 1 meter (3.28 feet). With no windows in the transformer room, which would be located along the southwestern façade, the building would provide about 20 dBA attenuation for surrounding receptors. Table 9 summarizes the noise levels generated at the property lines of the existing surrounding receptors by the groundlevel transformers, assuming 20 dBA attenuation. 923 of 1252
27 TABLE 9 Estimated Operational Noise Levels for Transformers Located on the Ground Level
Receptor
Distance from
Center of
Transformer
Room
Combined Leq
from Three
Transformers
Combined Ldn
Noise Level
Increase, Ldn
SE Residences 145 feet < 20 dBAa 22 dBAa 0 dBA
SW Commercial 85 feet 21 dBAa 27 dBAa 0 dBA
NW Commercial 220 feet < 20 dBAa < 20 dBAa 0 dBA
Future NE
Residential/
Commercial
265 feet < 20 dBAa < 20 dBAa N/Ab
a Conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction from the mechanical screening and the elevation is assumed. b Future receptors would not be subject to a noise level increase since they do not currently exist.

The City’s daytime and nighttime thresholds for operations occurring for more than 30 minutes in a given hour would not be exceeded by the ground-level transformers at the existing and future receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. All other electrical and pump rooms on the ground-level would generate noise levels lower than transformers and would also be located within rooms of the building. For all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to transformer noise would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).

The multi-split VRF condensing units located within the mechanical penthouse on level 5 would be for the ground-level commercial use and the office floors. While noise level information for these units were not available at the time of this study, VRF units for office buildings of this size would generate noise levels up to 66 dBA at a distance of 3 feet, while a grocery store of the size proposed by the applicant would include condensing units with noise levels of about 69 dBA at 10 feet.

Exhaust fans for the ground-level commercial use are expected to produce noise levels of 55 to 65 at a distance of 3 feet. When operating at full speed, noise levels from exhaust fans from the parking garage would be up to 76 dBA at a distance of 5 feet and up to 65 dBA at 5 feet when operating at 35% speed. Typically, these types of fans would run at 20% speed, which would generate noise levels even lower; however, for purposes of studying worst-case scenario, full speed conditions are assumed.

Under worst-case conditions, up to five office condensing units, two grocery store condensing units, two commercial exhaust fans, and a garage exhaust fan would operate simultaneously for a combined noise level of 85 dBA at 3 feet. These types of units would cycle on and off continuously over a given 24-hour period, and assuming all units running continuously, the day-night average noise level under worst-case conditions would be 91 dBA Ldn at 3 feet.

Solar panels are also shown on the southeastern edge of the fifth level; however, this type of equipment would not generate noise levels audible at the project boundaries.

The mechanical would be surrounded by the residential units to the northeast and by a parapet wall of about the same height as the building façade around the other three sides of the penthouse. It is assumed that the mechanical screen would be solid from base to top with no cracks or gaps but would 924 of 1252
28 be open on the roof. In combination with the elevation above the ground, there would be a minimum attenuation of 20 dBA for existing receptors located on the ground level or second story. A minimum attenuation of 20 dBA would also be assumed for the future residential/commercial buildings northeast of the site since the proposed residential units on level five would break the line-of-sight to the future receptors. The existing residential building to the southeast is five stories tall. The partial shielding from the building façade and the mechanical screen would provide a minimum attenuation of 10 dBA for this residential building. Table 10 summarizes the hourly average and day-night average noise levels propagated from the level 5 mechanical penthouse to the property lines of the nearest surrounding receptors with direct line-of-sight to the mechanical penthouse.

TABLE 10 Estimated Operational Noise Levels for Equipment Located in the Level 5 Mechanical Penthouse
Receptor
Distance from
Center of
Mechanical
Penthouse
Combined Leq
from
Mechanical
Penthouse
Combined Ldn
Noise Level
Increase, Ldn
SE Residences 190 feet 39 dBAb 45 dBAb 0 dBA
SW Commercial 145 feet 31 dBAa 38 dBAa 0 dBA
NW Commercial 180 feet 29 dBAa 36 dBAa 0 dBA
Future NE
Residential/
Commercial
205 feet 28 dBAa 35 dBAa N/Ac
a Conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction from the mechanical screening, the elevation, and/or intervening residential units is assumed. b Conservative 10 dBA noise level reduction from the mechanical screening and building façade is assumed. c Future receptors would not be subject to a noise level increase since they do not currently exist.

Assuming a minimum attenuation of 10 to 20 dBA, the equipment in the mechanical penthouse would not exceed the City’s hourly average noise levels during daytime or nighttime hours at the nearest surrounding existing and future receptors or the day-night average noise level at the property line. For all existing receptors, the noise level increase due to equipment in the mechanical penthouse would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).

The rooftop would include HVAC for the residential units. Noise levels generated by these types of units would be up to 62 dBA at 20 feet. Assuming up to five units operating simultaneously at any given time, hourly average noise levels would be up to 69 dBA Leq at a distance of 20 feet during daytime and nighttime hours. Under worst-case conditions with these units cycling on and off continuously over any given 24-hour period, the day-night average noise level under worst-case conditions would be 75 dBA Ldn at 20 feet.

Table 11 summarizes the noise levels at the property lines of the surrounding land uses for noise generated at the rooftop equipment. Assuming these units would be set back at least 10 feet from the edge of the rooftop above the residential units, a minimum attenuation of 20 dBA would occur at the ground-level and two-story receptors. With no screening, the existing residential building to the southeast and the future residential/commercial buildings to the northeast would potentially have 925 of 1252
29 direct line-of-sight to the rooftop equipment at the project site. No attenuation is applied to these receptors.

TABLE 11 Estimated Operational Noise Levels due to Rooftop Residential Equipment Receptor
Distance from
Center of Nearest
Rooftop
Equipment
Noise Levels
from Rooftop
Equipment
Rooftop
Ldn
Noise Level
Increase, Ldn
SE Residences 125 feet 53 dBAb 60 dBAb 1 dBA
SW Commercial 140 feet 32 dBAa 39 dBAa 0 dBA
NW Commercial 130 feet 33 dBAa 39 dBAa 0 dBA
Future NE
Residential/
Commercial
125 feet 53 dBAb 60 dBAb N/Ac
a Conservative 20 dBA noise level reduction from the mechanical screening and the elevation is assumed. b Conservatively, no attenuation is assumed since these residential receptors would potentially have direct line-of-sight to the rooftop equipment.

The rooftop equipment would not exceed the City’s hourly average noise levels during daytime or nighttime hours at the nearest existing receptors or the day-night average noise level at the property line. For all existing commercial receptors, the noise level increase due to equipment on the rooftop would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase), while up to a 1 dBA Ldn would potentially occur at the existing residential land uses to the southeast.

Truck Loading and Unloading
The site plan shows the commercial loading zone and trash pickup area attached to the groundlevel retail portion of the building, with access along South B Street. This loading area would be shielded from the existing residential building to the southeast and the commercial uses to the southwest and northwest. The future residential/commercial uses to the northeast, however, would have direct line-of-sight to the loading zone, assuming the doors are open during deliveries. Trash pickup for the office uses are shown in the southern corner, which would have direct line-of-sight to both the residential uses to the southeast and the commercial uses to the southwest.

For all loading and unloading activities at the grocery store use, truck maneuvering could take up to 15 minutes. Since the measured hourly average noise levels in the project vicinity exceeded the City’s thresholds in Table 7.30.040, the noise limit for all loading/unloading activities at the grocery store occurring for up to 15 minutes in any hour would be 5 dBA added to the average ambient levels during daytime hours only, which would be 72 dBA at the future residential/commercial receptors to the northeast. Trash pickup typically takes up to five minutes in a given hour, which means 10 dB would be added to the ambient levels. The threshold for trash pickup would be 75 dBA at the existing residences to the southeast and would be 77 dBA at the existing commercial uses to the southwest.

Truck maneuvering noise would include a combination of engine, exhaust, and tire noise, as well as the intermittent sounds of back-up alarms and releases of compressed air associated with 926 of 1252
30 truck/trailer air brakes. Heavy trucks, such as those used at grocery stores, typically generate maximum instantaneous noise levels of 70 to 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Smaller mediumsized trash trucks typically generate maximum noise levels of 60 to 65 dBA at 50 feet. The noise level of backup alarms can vary depending on the type and directivity of the sound, but maximum noise levels are typically in the range of 65 to 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.

Assuming three heavy truck deliveries at the grocery store and one trash pickup at the grocery store in a 24-hour period, which would represent worst-case conditions, noise levels generated at the proposed grocery store loading zone would range from 54 to 69 dBA Leq, and the day-night average noise level would be 60 dBA Ldn at a distance of 50 feet. The future residential/commercial uses located northeast of the project site is approximately 105 feet from the center of the loading zone along South B Street. At this distance, hourly average noise levels would range from 48 to 63 dBA Leq, and the day-night average noise level would be 54 dBA Ldn. These levels would not exceed ambient conditions or the thresholds established by the City during daytime hours.

Assuming only one trash pickup at the office trash area, the hourly average noise levels would be 54 dBA Leq at 50 feet, and the day-night average noise level would be 40 dBA Ldn. Table 12 summarizes the noise levels due to trash pickup at the office trash area for the receptors with direct line-of-sight.

TABLE 12 Estimated Operational Noise Levels due to Trash Pickups Receptor
Distance from
Center of
Nearest Trash
Area
Hourly
Average Noise
Levels from
Trash Pickup
Estimated Ldn
Noise Level
Increase, Ldn
SE Residences 95 feet 49 dBA 35 dBA 0 dBA
SW Commercial 90 feet 49 dBA 35 dBA 0 dBA
The nearest existing receptors to the office trash pickup would not be exposed to truck maneuvering noise levels exceeding City thresholds. For all existing receptors with direct line-ofsight, the noise level increase due to trash pick noise would not be measurable or detectable (0 dBA Ldn increase).

Total Combined Project-Generated Noise
The operational noise levels produced by the proposed project combined (i.e., traffic, mechanical equipment, and truck loading/unloading activities) would result in up to a 2 dBA Ldn increase at the existing residential building along East 5th Avenue and less than 1 dBA Ldn at all other existing noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Further, operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s thresholds at the property lines or exceed ambient levels at the surrounding existing and future land uses. This is a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 1b: None required.
927 of 1252
31 Impact 2: Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration. Construction-related vibration levels would not exceed applicable vibration thresholds at nearby sensitive land uses. This is a less-than-significant impact.

The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. Pile driving equipment, which can cause excessive vibration, is not expected to be required for the proposed project.

The California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, which typically consist of buildings constructed since the 1990s. Conservative vibration limits of 0.3 in/sec PPV has been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern (see Table 3 above for further explanation). For historical buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened, a cautious limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV is often used to provide the highest level of protection.

One historical building is located in the vicinity of the project site: at 505 South B Street, which is approximately 150 feet from the nearest edge of the project site. This structure would be subject to the conservative 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold. All other buildings surrounding the project site would be subject to the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold.

Table 13 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.), may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV, and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet.

Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 13 also summarizes the distances to the 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold for historical buildings and to the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for all other buildings. Since the historical building located at 505 South B Street is 150 feet from the project’s boundary, vibration levels would be at or below 0.03 in/sec PPV at this building, which would be well below the 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold. Therefore, this building would not be considered a sensitive receptor for construction vibration and will not be discussed further.
928 of 1252
32 TABLE 13 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
Minimum Distance to
Meet 0.08 in/sec PPV
(feet)
Minimum Distance to
Meet 0.3 in/sec PPV (feet)
Clam shovel drop 0.202 59 18
Hydromill (slurry
wall)
in soil 0.008 4 1
in rock 0.017 7 2
Vibratory Roller 0.210 61 19
Hoe Ram 0.089 28 9
Large bulldozer 0.089 28 9
Caisson drilling 0.089 28 9
Loaded trucks 0.076 24 8
Jackhammer 0.035 12 4
Small bulldozer 0.003 2 <1
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., September 2022.

Table 14 summarizes the vibration levels at each of the surrounding buildings in the project vicinity. Vibration levels are highest close to the source and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate �
𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
𝐷𝐷
� �

1.1 , where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. While construction noise levels increase based on the cumulative equipment in use simultaneously, construction vibration levels would be dependent on the location of individual pieces of equipment. That is, equipment scattered throughout the site would not generate a collective vibration level, but a vibratory roller, for instance, operating near the project site boundary would generate the worst-case vibration levels for the receptor sharing that property line.

Further, construction vibration impacts are assessed based on the potential for damage to buildings on receiving land uses, not at receptors at the nearest property lines. Therefore, the distances used to propagate construction vibration levels (as shown in Table 14), which are different than the distances used to propagate construction noise levels (as shown in Table 8), were estimated under the assumption that each piece of equipment from Table 13 was operating along the nearest boundary of the project site, which would represent the worst-case scenario.

As shown in Table 14, all non-historical buildings surrounding the project site would be more than 25 feet from the nearest boundary. Vibration levels at each of these buildings would be below 0.3 in/sec PPV.

Neither cosmetic, minor, or major damage would occur at historical or conventional buildings located 60 feet or more from the project site. At these locations, and in other surrounding areas where vibration would not be expected to cause cosmetic damage, vibration levels may still be perceptible. However, as with any type of construction, this would be anticipated and would not be considered significant, given the intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (use of jackhammers and other high-power tools). By use of administrative controls, such as notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration during hours with the least potential to affect nearby businesses, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum.
929 of 1252
33 In summary, the construction of the project would not generate vibration levels exceeding 0.08 in/sec PPV at historic properties in the project vicinity and would not generate vibration levels of

0.3 in/sec PPV at the nonhistorical buildings surrounding the project site. This would be considered a less-than-significant impact.

TABLE 14 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV (in/sec) Estimated at Nearest Building Façades Surrounding the Project Site
Southeast
Residential
Buildings (85ft)
Southwest
Commercial
Buildings (80ft)
Northwest
Commercial
Buildings (85ft)
Future Northeast
Residential/
Commercial
Buildings (90ft)
Clam shovel drop 0.053 0.056 0.053 0.049
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
in soil 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
in rock 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004
Vibratory Roller 0.005 0.058 0.005 0.051
Hoe Ram 0.023 0.025 0.023 0.022
Large bulldozer 0.023 0.025 0.023 0.022
Caisson drilling 0.023 0.025 0.023 0.022
Loaded trucks 0.020 0.021 0.020 0.019
Jackhammer 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.009
Small bulldozer 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., September 2022.

Mitigation Measure 2: None required.

Impact 3: Excessive Aircraft Noise. The project site is located about 3.7 miles from the San Francisco International Airport. The noise environment attributable to aircraft is considered normally acceptable. This is a less-than-significant impact.

The San Francisco International Airport is a public-use airport located approximately 3.7 miles northwest of the project site. According to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, 1 the project site lies well outside the
65 dBA CNEL/Ldn noise contour (see Figure 2), and the required safe and compatible threshold for exterior noise levels would be at or below 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn for aircrafts. Therefore, the proposed project would be compatible with the exterior noise standards for aircraft noise.

Assuming standard construction materials for aircraft noise below 60 dBA Ldn, the future interior noise levels resulting from aircraft would below 45 dBA Ldn. Therefore, future interior noise at the proposed building would be compatible with aircraft noise. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3: None required.
1 Ricondo & Associates, Inc. with Jacobs Consultancy and Clarion Associates, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, November 2012. 930 of 1252
34 FIGURE 2 2020 CNEL Noise Contours for San Francisco International Airport Relative to Project Site 65 CNEL
Project
Site
931 of 1252
35 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise impacts would include temporary construction noise from cumulative construction projects.

A significant cumulative traffic noise impact would occur if two criteria are met: 1) if the cumulative traffic noise level increase was 3 dBA Ldn or greater for future levels exceeding the normally acceptable threshold; and 2) if the project would make a “cumulatively considerable” contribution to the overall traffic noise increase. A “cumulatively considerable” contribution would be defined as an increase of 1 dBA Ldn or more attributable solely to the proposed project.

Cumulative and cumulative plus project ADT traffic volumes were included in the traffic study.

When these volumes were compared to the existing ADT volumes, an increase of 2 dBA Ldn or less was calculated with and without the project, which would not be considered a “cumulatively considerable” contribution. Therefore, the project would not cause a significant cumulative noise increase at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity.

The City of San Mateo has provided the following list of project sites located within 500 feet of the proposed 222 East 4th Avenue project site:
• 445 South B Street – this project is located opposite South B Street from the project site and would take up the entire block. This project has not been approved. A Preliminary Planning Application has been submitted for this new mixed-use development project, but it has not yet been approved. The project proposes a seven-story 60-unit affordable housing building, a five-story office/retail building, and 128 parking spaces. Construction dates for this project have not been confirmed but due to the close proximity of the project site and the noise-sensitive receptors shared by both project sites (i.e., the existing residential receptors south of the project site and the existing commercial buildings to the north of the project site), a significant cumulative construction impact would potentially occur, exposing the nearby sensitive receptors to construction activities at both sites simultaneously or consecutively.
• 180 East 3rd Avenue – this project is located in the southern corner of the East 3rd Avenue/South Ellsworth Avenue intersection and would be approximately 260 feet from the Draegers Mixed-Use project site. The project proposes the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a three-story mixed-use building, consisting of groundlevel retail and office on the remaining floors. While this project has been approved, construction has not started. Since this project has been approved and would not share noise-sensitive receptors with direct line-of-sight to both project sites, this would not result in a cumulative construction impact.
• Kiku Crossing and 5th Avenue Garage – this project is located northeast of the railroad tracks between East 4th Avenue and East 5th Avenue, approximately 400 feet from the Draegers Mixed-Use project site. This project consists of 225 affordable residential units in a seven-story building and five-level parking garage. This project is currently under 932 of 1252
36 construction and will likely be completed before the Draegers project starts. This would not result in a cumulative construction impact.

The existing receptors south and north of the project site would be considered sensitive receptors during construction activities at both Draegers Mixed-Use and 445 South B Street project sites, and construction activities could occur simultaneously or consecutively. However, the noisesensitive residential uses southeast of the project site would be more directly exposed to construction noise at the Draegers site than the 445 South B Street site. With the implementation of construction noise and vibration mitigation measures included in the individual projects, construction noise and vibration levels would be reduced as much as possible at all surrounding sensitive receptors during construction of each individual project. Therefore, the potential cumulative construction impact would be less-than-significant. 933 of 1252
37 APPENDIX
FIGURE A1 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-1, Tuesday, March 22, 2022 934 of 1252
38 FIGURE A2 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-1, Wednesday, March 23, 2022 935 of 1252
39 FIGURE A3 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-1, Thursday, March 24, 2022 936 of 1252
40 FIGURE A4 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2, Tuesday, March 22, 2022 937 of 1252
41 FIGURE A5 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2, Wednesday, March 23, 2022 938 of 1252
42 FIGURE A6 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2, Thursday, March 24, 2022 939 of 1252
October 2022
SAN MATEO DRAEGER’S

TIA REPORT
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE, SAN MATEO, CA
940 of 1252
Inside front cover
Page Intentionally blank
941 of 1252
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA
222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA
Prepared for:

City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Prepared by:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.1742
Project Manager:

Anusha Musunuru, PhD
Senior Engineering Associate
Project Principal:

Damian Stefanakis
Senior Principal Planner
Project Analysts:

Sophia Semensky
Allison Woodworth
Daniel Bowers
Karen Phan
Project Number 24837.009
October 2022
942 of 1252
Page Intentionally blank
943 of 1252

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................v Project Trip Generation.......................................................................................................v CEQA Analysis .....................................................................................................................v Local Transportation Analysis.............................................................................................v Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 Project Description..............................................................................................................1 Existing and Proposed uses ................................................................................................1 CEQA Analysis.........................................................................................................................1 Screening Criteria................................................................................................................1 VMT Impact Discussion .......................................................................................................2 Local Transportation Analysis.................................................................................................7 Scope of Study ....................................................................................................................7 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................11 Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions...............................................................................21 Project Travel Demand.....................................................................................................24 Baseline Plus Project Conditions ......................................................................................25 Cumulative Conditions.....................................................................................................28 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.................................................................................31 Additional Transportation Analysis...................................................................................34 Technical Appendix..........................................................................................................41 944 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report
Kittelson & Associates ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location ...........................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Site Plan .........................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: HQTA Map.....................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 4: VMT per Employee Map (VMT Labeled)....................................................................................................4 Figure 5: VMT per Employee Map (TAZ Labeled).....................................................................................................5 Figure 6: Study Intersections........................................................................................................................................9 Figure 7: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network ...................................................................................................13 Figure 8: Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................................................16 Figure 9: Existing and Baseline (Opening Year) Lane Configurations & Traffic Control at Study Intersections 18 Figure 10: Existing Conditions Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes.......................................................19 Figure 11: Existing Conditions Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes .......................................................20 Figure 12: Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes.........................22 Figure 13: Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes..........................23 Figure 14: Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes ....26 Figure 15: Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes.....27 Figure 16: Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes...............................................29 Figure 17: Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes................................................30 Figure 18: Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes...........................32 Figure 19: Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes...........................33 945 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report
Kittelson & Associates iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: City of San Mateo Parking Requirements and Proposed Project Parking Spaces Calculation............2 Table 2: Level of Service Definition for Intersections...............................................................................................10 Table 3: Existing Transit Service .................................................................................................................................15 Table 4: Existing Conditions Intersection Operations Results .................................................................................17 Table 5: Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions Intersection Operations Results....................................................21 Table 6: Project Trip Generation...............................................................................................................................25 Table 7: Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions Intersection Operations Results...............................25 Table 8: Cumulative Conditions Intersection Operations Results..........................................................................28 Table 9: Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Operations Results.........................................................................31 Table 10: 95th Percentile Queue Lengths for Existing Conditions .........................................................................38 Table 11: 95th Percentile Queue Lengths for Baseline (Opening Year) and Baseline Plus Project Conditions 39 Table 12: 95th Percentile Queue Lengths for Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ................40 946 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report
Kittelson & Associates iv

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Project Travel Demand Memorandum
Appendix B: Existing Conditions Worksheets
Appendix C: Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions Worksheets Appendix D: Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions Worksheets Appendix E: Cumulative Conditions Worksheets
Appendix F: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Worksheets Appendix G: 95th Percentile Queue Length Worksheets
947 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report
Kittelson & Associates v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The proposed project is estimated to generate 169 vehicle trips (120 inbound, 49 outbound) during the weekday AM peak hour and 201 vehicle trips (70 inbound, 131 outbound) during the weekday PM peak hour. The existing Draeger’s supermarket is estimated to generate 304 vehicle trips (167 inbound, 137 outbound) during the weekday AM peak hour and 432 vehicle trips (216 inbound, 216 outbound) during the weekday PM peak hour. The proposed project generates fewer AM and PM peak hour trips when compared to the AM and PM peak hour trips currently being generated by the existing Draeger’s supermarket.

CEQA ANALYSIS
This project is located within a half mile of the San Mateo Downtown Caltrain station, and it meets the detailed screening criteria requirements to be considered within a High-Quality Transit Area (HQTA) per the City VMT Guidelines. In meeting at least one of the five screening criteria, the proposed project can be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact and therefore is exempted from the detailed VMT analysis.

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Kittelson conducted the intersection level of service analysis at all five study intersections for Existing, Baseline (Opening Year), Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions for weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. Kittelson reviewed the site access and onsite circulation based on the proposed site plan and the changes in the 95th percentile queue lengths caused by the proposed project at the study intersections. The results for all scenarios are presented in the report below. The proposed project would not cause any study intersections to exceed the level of service standard as specified in the City of San Mateo TIA guidelines in the existing, baseline (opening year), and cumulative conditions.1 Storage capacity is exceeded for the EB and SB approaches at 4th Ave and B St in the AM and PM Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios as well as the EB only approach at 4th Ave and Ellsworth in the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project PM scenarios . Although storage capacity is exceeded in these scenarios, queue lengths do not increase with respect to plus project scenarios when compared to no project scenarios. Thus, the proposed project does not impact the status quo. 1 City of San Mateo Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2020. 948 of 1252
Introduction
949 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Introduction
Kittelson & Associates Page 1

INTRODUCTION
This report documents the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis findings and the local transportation analysis conducted for the proposed 222 E. 4th Avenue Draeger’s Site Mixed Use Project development in San Mateo, California (Figure 1).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located at 222 East 4th Avenue and is approximately 0.4 miles from the San Mateo Caltrain downtown station. Vehicular access to the site is proposed on 5th Avenue, where the garage entry/exit is provided. In addition, pedestrian and bike access to the garage is through a shared lobby on the east by B Street. The residential lobby is provided midblock on the east by B Street, the office lobby is provided midblock on the west by Ellsworth Avenue, and retail entrance is provided on the north by 4th Avenue. Nearby land uses include residential, commercial/retail, recreational, and a hospital. San Mateo Central Park is located to the southwest of the site. The Project site is in downtown San Mateo and is zoned as Central Business District/Residential Overlay District – Mixed Use (CBD).

EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES
The existing site is the Draeger’s grocery store, consisting of 60, 965 SF.

Lane Partners is proposing to replace the existing 60,965 square feet Draeger’s market located at 222 East 4th Avenue with a 5-story, approximately 152,533 square feet mixed-use building with two levels of below grade parking. The building would consist of approximately 104,554 square feet of office space, 17,658 square feet of retail space, and 8,997 square feet of residential space for 10 below-market-rate units at the lower income level. The retail floor would be located on the ground floor, the office space would be spread throughout the first four floors, and the residential space would be split between the ground floor (i.e., residential lobby/elevator) and the fifth floor living areas. The ground floor would also include 12,392 square feet of covered parking area and two levels (89,519 square feet) below grade for a total of 221 parking spaces. The Project site plan is shown in Figure 2. Regional access to the project is via State Route 82 (El Camino Real), and US 101 via 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue. Local access to the project site would be provided by 5th Avenue, 4th Avenue, Ellsworth Avenue, and B Street. 950 of 1252
© 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS N
H:\24\24837 - San Mateo On-Call TIAs\009 - San Mateo Draeger's (222 E 4th Ave) TIA\report\figs\24837.009-Figures.dwg Aug 29, 2022 - 5:07pm - dbowers Layout Tab: Project Location Project Location 1
San Mateo Hayward Park Station Transportation Impact Analysis Figure
280
101
Site
4th Ave
3rd Ave
2nd Ave
5th Ave
6th Ave
7th Ave
8th Ave
9th Ave
B St
Laurel Ave
San Mateo Dr
Ellsworth Ave
B St
Claremont St
Delaware St
Railroad Ave
1st Ave
951 of 1252
H:\24\24837 - San Mateo On-Call TIAs\009 - San Mateo Draeger's (222 E 4th Ave) TIA\report\figs\24837.009-Figures.dwg Aug 29, 2022 - 5:07pm - dbowers Layout Tab: Site Plan Site Plan 2
San Mateo Hayward Park Station Transportation Impact Analysis Figure
952 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Introduction
Kittelson & Associates Page 4

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The project would implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to encourage sustainable modes of transportation and reduce vehicle trips to and from the site. The TDM Plan is being developed by Steer Group as part of this project.

SCOPE OF STUDY
The purpose of this transportation analysis is to determine whether the proposed project would have transportation impacts, as defined by the City of San Mateo’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, developed in accordance with the City’s General Plan and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) requirements in July 2020. The analysis covers the following topics:

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ANALYSIS
Senate Bill (SB) 743 changed the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Specifically, SB 743 updated the way transportation impacts are measured for development projects, based on the number of daily trips and the distance traveled by those trips to their destinations (VMT). The technical advisory provided by the OPR specifically addresses the requirements of California SB 743 which mandated specific types of CEQA analysis of land use development and transportation projects effective July 1, 2020. The quantitative methodology, significance thresholds, and mitigation measures for conducting transportation analysis are based on VMT metrics.

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
The City of San Mateo requires the analysis of unsignalized and signalized intersections, though it does not require the analysis of roadway segments, in compliance with the 2030 General Plan. Since a roadway segment’s capacity is generally controlled by the downstream intersection, an intersection analysis is sufficient for assessing a project’s impacts. Based on the discussions with City Staff and the approved scope of work, Kittelson evaluated the following under the local transportation analysis section:
 Site Access and On-Site Circulation
o Vehicular Access
o Pedestrian Access
o Bicyclist Access
o Transit Access
o Emergency Vehicle Access
 Intersection Operations
o Level of Service
o Vehicle Queueing
953 of 1252
CEQA Analysis
954 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report CEQA Analysis
Kittelson & Associates Page 1

CEQA ANALYSIS

SCREENING CRITERIA
According to the technical advisory by OPR2 and the more specific City VMT/TIA Guidelines3, a project may require a detailed VMT analysis unless it meets at least one of the City’s five screening criteria:

1. Small Projects – As per the OPR advisory and the City VMT/TIA Guidelines, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 vehicle trips per day are classified as ‘small projects’. This proposed project has 10 residential units; 104,554 square feet of office space, and 17,658 square feet of retail space and generates 2,904 vehicle trips per day (Detailed trip generation is described in technical memo from Kittelson, dated August 22, 2022). The project generated trips are more than this screening threshold permits. The project does not meet this criterion.

2. Affordable Housing – As per the guidelines, residential projects that consist entirely of 100 percent deed restricted affordable housing are presumed to have a less than significant impact. The proposed project is a mixed-use development consisting of residential, office, and retail use. The project does not meet this criterion.

3. Local-Serving Retail and Public Services – As per the guidelines, projects that are locally serving retail with 50,000 square feet gross floor area or less are presumed to have a less than significant impact.

The proposed project is a mixed use development and while the retail portion is only 17,658 square feet and therefore can be screened out, the building’s office use cannot. The project does not meet this criterion.

4. High-Quality Transit Area (HQTA) – As per the guidelines, projects located within a HQTA do not require a detailed VMT analysis. The proposed project is in a high-quality transit area as specified by the City’s HQTA map (Attachment A of the City’s TIA Guidelines) which is included here as Figure 3.

This exemption from a detailed VMT analysis does not apply if any of the following are true about the project:
a. Project has a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75 – false. The FAR for this proposed project development is 3.1.
b. Project includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction – false. The off-street parking requirement is determined by the Downtown Area Plan and the Downtown Specific Planning Area and Central Parking and Improvement District (CPID). Table 1 shows the minimum required amount of parking for the proposed project. The City requires 320 parking stalls based on the project characteristics. The project is providing 221 parking stalls. c. Project is inconsistent with the applicable Metropolitan Transportation Commissions’ (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as determined by the City - false. The City has not indicated that this project is out of alignment with the MTC SCS. 2 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018.
3 City of San Mateo Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2020. 955 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report CEQA Analysis
Kittelson & Associates Page 2
d. Project replaces affordable units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units – false. This project is not replacing any affordable residential units.

The proposed project meets the HQTA criterion and does not exhibit any of the characteristics which would exempt it from satisfying this screening.

Table 1: City of San Mateo Parking Requirements and Proposed Project Parking Spaces Calculation Land use type
San Mateo Off-Street Parking Requirements (per
1,000 Gross Square Feet (SF) of Floor Area Proposed Project Parking Calcs Employee/Resident Visitor/Customer Total Total Units/Area Parking Spaces Office 2.4 0.2 2.6 104,554 SF 273
Retail 1.4 0.5 1.9 17,658 SF 34
Residential
One-bedroom 1.0 0.2 1.2 8 10
Studio 1.0 0.2 1.2 2 3
Total 320

5. Project Located in Low VMT Areas – Projects that are proposed in areas that generate VMT below adopted City thresholds are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and thus can be screened out. The thresholds and project types that may be screened out are:
a. Residential projects proposed in TAZs with total daily resident based VMT per capita that is 15% less than the existing regional average for the County of San Mateo. This is a mixed-use project and does not meet this criterion – false.
b. Office or employment portions of other non-residential uses with total daily employee based VMT per employee that is 15% less than the existing regional average for the County of San Mateo. The proposed mixed-use project is in Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) 3066 with VMT per Employee of 14.9. The San Mateo County has a regional average of 18.0 VMT per Employee with an impact threshold of 15.3 VMT per Employee (15% below regional average) for this mixed-use project – true.

The proposed project is a mixed-use development that includes retail, office, and residential uses. While the nonresidential component of the proposed project screens out, the overall project does not screen out as the residential thresholds are not applicable for the mixed-use project.

VMT IMPACT DISCUSSION
A review of the OPR Technical Advisory and City TIA Guidelines has determined that the project meets the minimum of one of the five of the VMT screening criteria - it is in a High-Quality Transit Area. Therefore, the project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and is exempt from detailed VMT analysis.
956 of 1252
±
±
±
±
±
ß/ϭϬϭ
x¿ϴϮ
x¿ϯϱ
x¿ϵϮ
§¨¦ϮϴϬ
ƵƌůŝŶŐĂŵĞ
^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ
^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ
^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ
,ĂLJǁĂƌĚWĂƌŬ
^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ
,ŝůůƐĚĂůĞ
^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ
ĞůŵŽŶƚ
^ƚĂƚŝŽŶ
H:\24\24441 - City of San Mateo Transportation On-Call\GIS\High Quality Transit Areas.mxd Date: 7/13/2020 High-Quality Transit Areas
City of San Mateo, CA
[ 03,900Feet
±
&DOWUDLQ6WDWLRQV
+LJK4XDOLW\7UDQVLW$UHD
&LW\%RXQGDU\
High-quality transit areas are within
1/2 mile of an existing major transit
stop or an existing stop along a highqualiity transit corridor Figure 
957 of 1252
ß/ϭϬϭ
x¿ϴϮ
x¿ϯϱ
x¿ϵϮ
§¨¦ϮϴϬ

































































































































 













































 














 
































































 
























 



H:\24\24441 - City of San Mateo Transportation On-Call\GIS\TAZ Employees_Screening.mxd Date: 7/13/2020 Average VMT per Employee by TAZ
VMT per Employee Labeled
City of San Mateo, CA
[ 03,900Feet
$YHUDJH907(PSOR\HHE\7$=
%HORZ7DUJHW907
&RXQW\
$YHUDJH

7DUJHW907
&RXQW\$YHUDJH

WR&RXQW\$YHUDJH
! $ERYH&RXQW\$YHUDJH
1R'DWD
&LW\%RXQGDU\
+LJK4XDOLW\7UDQVLW$UHD
3ULRULW\'HYHORSPHQW$UHD
*Average VMT per Employee by TAZ for San Mateo County is 18.0 Figure 4
958 of 1252
ß/ϭϬϭ
x¿ϴϮ
x¿ϯϱ
x¿ϵϮ
§¨¦ϮϴϬ

































































































































































 



















































































 


















































































 
























H:\24\24441 - City of San Mateo Transportation On-Call\GIS\TAZ Employees_Screening_Labeled.mxd Date: 7/13/2020 Average VMT per Employee by TAZ
TAZ Number Labeled
City of San Mateo, CA
[ 03,900Feet
$YHUDJH907(PSOR\HHE\7$=
%HORZ7DUJHW907
&RXQW\
$YHUDJH

7DUJHW907
&RXQW\
$YHUDJH
WR&RXQW\$YHUDJH
! $ERYH&RXQW\$YHUDJH
1R'DWD
&LW\%RXQGDU\
+LJK4XDOLW\7UDQVLW$UHD
3ULRULW\'HYHORSPHQW$UHD
*Average VMT per Employee by TAZ for San Mateo County is 18.0 Figure 5
959 of 1252
Local Transportation Analysis
960 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 7

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

SCOPE OF STUDY

TIME PERIODS
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday a.m. (7-9 am) and p.m. peak (4- 6 pm) hours of adjacent street traffic. It is during these peak commute periods that the traffic demand on the roadway system is the greatest.

Kittelson obtained the multimodal intersection turning movement counts at three of the five study intersections from the City for the weekday a.m. (7-9 am) and p.m. (4-6 pm) peak periods when the existing project site generated trips. These intersections included: E 5th Ave/Ellsworth Avenue, E 5th Ave/B Street, and E 4th Ave/B Street. The multimodal intersection turning movement counts for E 4th Ave/Ellsworth Ave and E 5th Ave/Laurel Ave were obtained using the Streetlight data. These turning movement counts obtained from Streetlight data were adjusted so that the intersection entry and exit volumes match the adjacent counts collected at the other study intersections. After these checks were performed, it was observed that the counts obtained from Streetlight data at E 5th Ave/Laurel Ave seemed to be overestimated when compared to the adjacent intersections. Hence, counts were collected at this intersection of E 5th Ave/Laurel Ave and these collected counts were used for analyzing traffic conditions as part of this project.

Transportation conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions. Traffic volumes for the Existing Conditions were estimated using historical counts and Streetlight data, as collecting turning movement volumes at the study intersections was not recommended due to COVID-194 conditions. However, due to unavailability of accurate multimodal count data at E 5th Ave/Laurel Ave, Kittelson collected counts at this one intersection. • Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions. Baseline (Opening Year) traffic volumes were estimated by adding the projected volumes from approved, but not yet completed land use development and transportation projects to existing peak hour volumes for the project completion year. • Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions. Baseline (Opening Year) traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the project to the approved/baseline (opening year) traffic volumes. Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions were evaluated relative to Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions to determine the effects the proposed project would have on the Baseline (Opening Year) roadway network. • Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative Conditions are represented by future traffic volumes on the roadway network. This scenario was estimated by adding a regional growth to existing traffic volumes between the existing year and future year (2040). • Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes with the project are estimated by adding cumulative traffic volumes to the additional traffic generated by the project. Cumulative 4 The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in shelter-in-place orders across the Bay Area and travel demand was significantly reduced across all modes. Travel patterns also changed substantially. These changes are the result of multiple factors such as school closures, restrictions on business operations, and an increased amount of telecommuting. 961 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 8
Plus Project Conditions were evaluated relative to Cumulative Conditions to determine the effects the proposed project would have on the future roadway network.

STUDY INTERSECTIONS
The following five study intersections were selected for analysis and are shown in Figure 6. Intersections with an asterisk indicate counts obtained using Streetlight data.

1. E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue

2. E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue

3. E 5th Avenue/B Street

4. E 4th Avenue/B Street

5. E 4th Avenue/ Ellsworth Avenue*

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA
Level of service (LOS) describes the operating conditions experienced by motorists. LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions and delay, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort, and convenience. LOS A through LOS F covers the entire range of traffic operations that might occur. Motorists using a facility that operates at a LOS A experience very little delay, while those using a facility that operates at a LOS F will experience long delays. Intersection analyses for the five study intersections were conducted using the operational methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6th Edition) methodology (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016), calculated with Synchro 11 software.

Signalized Intersections
The HCM procedure calculates a weighted average control delay in seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection and assigns a level of service designation based upon the delay. The City of San Mateo level of service standard is mid-LOS D (delay of 45 seconds) or better for all signalized study intersections.

Unsignalized Intersections
The HCM methodology calculates a weighted average control delay in seconds per vehicle for each controlled intersection leg and for the intersection. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS for the worst approach is used as the LOS performance measure. The City of San Mateo does not have a LOS standard for unsignalized intersections as specified in the 2030 General Plan. The City adopted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines in August 2020 to include LOS standards for unsignalized intersections. According to the City of San Mateo standard, unsignalized intersections should maintain a LOS no worse than LOS E.

Table 2 presents the relationship of average delay to level of service for both signalized and unsignalized intersections.
962 of 1252
© 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS N
H:\24\24837 - San Mateo On-Call TIAs\009 - San Mateo Draeger's (222 E 4th Ave) TIA\report\figs\24837.009-Figures.dwg Aug 30, 2022 - 12:10pm - dbowers Layout Tab: Study_Ints Study Intersections 6
San Mateo Hayward Park Station Transportation Impact Analysis Figure
280
101
Site
4th Ave
3rd Ave
2nd Ave
5th Ave
6th Ave
7th Ave
8th Ave
9th Ave
B St
Laurel Ave
San Mateo Dr
Ellsworth Ave
B St
Claremont St
Delaware St
Railroad Ave
1st Ave
1 3
5 2
4 963 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 10
Table 2: Level of Service Definition for Intersections
Signalized Intersection

LOS

Description of Traffic Conditions
Unsignalized Intersection
Average Delay Per
Vehicle (Seconds)
Average Delay Per
Vehicle (Seconds)
≤10.0 A Free flowing. Most vehicles do not have to
stop. ≤10.0
>10.0 and ≤20.0 B Minimal delays. Some vehicles have to stop, although waits are not bothersome. >10.0 and ≤15.0
>20.0 and ≤35.0 C
Acceptable delays. Significant numbers of
vehicles have to stop because of steady,
high traffic volumes. Still, many pass without
stopping.
>15.0 and ≤25.0
>35.0 and ≤55.0 D
Tolerable delays. Many vehicles have to
stop. Drivers are aware of heavier traffic.

Cars may have to wait through more than
one red light. Queues begin to form, often
on more than one approach.
>25.0 and ≤35.0
>55.0 and ≤80.0 E
Significant delays. Cars may have to wait
through more than one red light. Long
queues form, sometimes on several
approaches.
>35.0 and ≤50.0
>80.0 F
Excessive delays. Intersection is jammed.

Many cars have to wait through more than
one red light, or more than 60 seconds.

Traffic may back up into “up-stream”
intersections.
>50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Washington D.C., 2016)

GENERAL PLAN LOS POLICY STANDARD
Per the City’s General Plan Circulation Element Policy C 2.7 (Section E), all projects are required, at a minimum, to pay a transportation mitigation fee. The transportation mitigation fee is used to fund planned transportation improvements that are identified in the City of San Mateo Traffic Mitigation Program. The cost of the off-site improvements may be reimbursed by the City if a reimbursement program is established through the timeframe of the City of San Mateo’s current Traffic Mitigation Program or at the time when the improvement was initially scheduled. In addition to paying the transportation impact fee, a development project may be required to fund off-site circulation improvements which are needed as a result of project generated traffic if:

Signalized Intersections
a) The level of service at the intersection drops below mid-level LOS D (average delay of more than 45 seconds) when the project traffic is added, and
b) An intersection that operates below its level of service standard under the base year conditions experiences an increase in delay of four or more seconds, and c) The needed improvement of the intersection(s) is not funded in the applicable five-year City Capital Improvement Program from the date of application approval. 964 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 11
Unsignalized Intersections
a) The level of service at the intersection drops from LOS E or better to LOS F (average delay of more than 50 seconds) when the project traffic is added, and b) An intersection that operates below its level of service standard under the base year conditions experiences an increase in delay of four or more seconds, and c) The needed improvement of the intersection(s) is not funded in the applicable five-year City Capital Improvement Program from the date of application approval.

Transportation studies typically evaluate whether unsignalized intersections are functioning adequately and whether signalization is warranted using the peak-hour volume signal warrant described in the California MUTCD.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

ROADWAY NETWORK
Regional access to the project is via State Route 82 (El Camino Real), and US 101 via 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue.

State Route 82 (El Camino Real) is a four-to six lane state highway in California, serving as a major northsouth corridor in the Peninsula. It extends from Interstate 880 in San Jose at the south end to Interstate 280 in San Francisco at the north end. It runs parallel to the Caltrain line along much of the route. Access to and from the project study area is provided via signalized intersections at 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue.

US 101 is a eight-to ten lane state highway in California, serving as the primary coastal route providing access to the San Francisco Bay Area. It is also the primary commuting route between San Francisco and San Jose. Access to and from the project study area is provided via interchanges at 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue to the northeast of the project site.
4th Avenue is an east-west, three to four-lane arterial roadway extending from Dartmouth Road on the west and transitioning into J Hart Clinton Drive in the east after crossing US 101. Arterial roads link residential and commercial districts and serve shorter through traffic needs. In the vicinity of the project site, 4th Avenue has three to four lanes. The road is directly adjacent to the project site and is proposed to provide direct access to the project site.
5th Avenue is an east-west, two to three-lane arterial roadway extending from Virginia Avenue on the west and transitioning into Amphlett Boulevard in the east. Arterial roads link residential and commercial districts and serve shorter through traffic needs. In the vicinity of the project site, 5th Avenue has two lanes. The road is directly adjacent to the project site and is proposed to provide direct access.

B Street is a north-south, two-lane collector roadway extending from Tilton Ave on the north and transitioning into South Boulevard on the south. Collector roads link arterial roads to local roads and serve some through traffic needs. In the vicinity of the project site, B Street has two lanes. The road is directly adjacent to the project site and is proposed to provide direct access.

Ellsworth Avenue is a north-south, two-lane collector roadway extending from Bellevue Avenue on the north to 5th Avenue on the south. Collector roads link arterial roads to local roads and serve some through traffic needs. In the vicinity of the project site, 5th Avenue has two lanes. The road is directly adjacent to the project site and is proposed to provide direct access. 965 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 12

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND AMENITIES
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. In the project vicinity, sidewalks exist along both sides of 4th Avenue, 5th Avenue, B Street, and one side of Ellsworth Avenue through the site, providing pedestrian access to and from the project site. Marked crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided at the B Street/4th Avenue, Ellsworth Avenue/4th Avenue, and B Street/5th Avenue intersections. The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has excellent connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to maneuver.

BICYCLE FACILITIES AND AMENITIES
Bicycle facilities are defined by the following four classes5:
 Class I (Multi-use Path) – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.  Class II (Bike Lane) – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
 Class III (Bike Route/Bicycle Boulevard) – Bike route provide signage and permanent markings on low-stress roadways to increase driver awareness of people biking. No exclusive right of way is provided. Bicycle boulevards prioritize bicycle through-travel and use traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic and maintain low motor vehicle volumes. These routes are often applied on quiet streets and through residential neighborhoods.6
 Class IV (Separated Bike Lane) – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive use of bicyclists that is separated by a vertical element to provide further separation from motor vehicle traffic.

The existing and proposed7 bicycle routes within the study area are described below. The existing bicycle network is shown in Figure 7.

B Street – There are currently no bicycle facilities provided on B Street through the San Mateo central business district. A buffered bike lane (Class II) is proposed along B Street from 5th Avenue south until the road transitions into South Boulevard.
5th Avenue – There are currently no bicycle facilities provided on 5th Avenue through the San Mateo Central Business District. The 2020 Bicycle Master Plan proposes upgrading the corridor from Dartmouth Road to Claremont Street to a bike lane (Class II) and Claremont Street to Amphlett Boulevard to a bicycle boulevard (Class III).
3rd Avenue – There are currently no bicycle facilities provided on 3rd Avenue through the San Mateo Central Business District. Notably, bike lanes exist in both directions west of Dartmouth Road, but they are not connected to the central business district. The 2020 Bicycle Master Plan proposes making that connection from Dartmouth Road to El Camino Real with a bike lane (Class II) and El Camino Real to the US-101 interchange to a separated bike lane (Class IV). 5 As detailed in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2015). 6 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan (2020), https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3944/Bicycle-Master-Plan-2020 7 As proposed in City of San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan, 2020. 966 of 1252
967 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 14
Laurel Avenue – There is currently a Class II bike lane provided south of 5th Avenue on Laurel Avenue. This is notable because it is the only current existing bicycle infrastructure in close proximity to the site. The 2020 Bicycle Master Plan does not propose any upgrades or changes to the existing configuration.

TRANSIT SERVICE
The existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and Caltrain.

SamTrans Service
The project site has five bus routes nearby (Route 397, 250, 292, 295, and ECR), operated by SamTrans with the nearest bus stops located at the intersections of 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue and 4th Avenue/San Mateo Drive. Three additional bus routes (school-day only) Route 53, 55, and 59 operate in the vicinity of the project site. The bus routes that provide the peak-hour services near the project site are described in Table 3 and are shown in Figure 8. Access to transit facilities will not change with the proposed site plan.

Caltrain Service
Commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy is provided by Caltrain. The project site is located approximately 0.4 miles away from the San Mateo Downtown Caltrain Station. Currently, Caltrain provides northbound and southbound service at this station at a half-hour frequency during the weekday and weekend AM and PM commute hours, midday, and at nights. Per the City of San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan8, the proposed project site is an ideal location for a transit village. 8San Mateo Rail Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Plan, 2005. https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/1899/Rail-CorridorTransit-Oriented-Developme , Accessed 2022. 968 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 15
Table 3: Existing Transit Service
Operator
Route Description Operating Hours
PeakHour
Headway
Closest Bus Stop
SamTrans 53
Borel Middle
School –
Peninsula/
Humboldt
(School-day only)
7:30 AM – 8:00
AM,
1:00 PM – 1:30 PM
(W), and 3:00 PM
– 3:30 PM
(M,T,TH,F)
N/A
3rd
Avenue/Delaware
Street
SamTrans 55
Borel Middle
School – Clark/El
Camino Real
(School-day only)
7:30 AM – 8:00
AM,
1:00 PM – 1:30 PM
(W), and 3:00 PM
– 3:30 PM
(M,T,TH,F)
N/A 4th Avenue/El
Camino Real
SamTrans 59
Aragon High
School –
Hillsdale/Norfolk
(School-day only)
7:30 AM – 8:15
AM,
3:45 PM – 4:15 PM
(M), 3:00 PM –
3:30 PM (T,TH),
and 4:00 PM –
4:30 PM (W,F)
N/A 4th Avenue/Ellsworth
Avenue
SamTrans 250
5th/El Camino -
College of San
Mateo
5:30 AM – 11:00
PM
30 minutes
4th Avenue/San
Mateo Drive
SamTrans 292
San Francisco –
Hillsdale Mall –
Serves SF Airport
24 hours 30
minutes
3rd
Avenue/Delaware
Street
SamTrans 295
San Mateo
Caltrain –
Redwood City
Transit Center
6:30 AM – 5:45 PM 120
minutes
4th Avenue/Ellsworth
Avenue
SamTrans 397
San Francisco –
Palo Alto Transit
Center – Serves
SF Airport
12:45 AM – 6:30
AM
60 minutes
2nd Avenue/El
Camino Real
SamTrans ECR
El Camino Real –
Palo Alto Transit
Center to Daly
City BART Station
24 hours
15 minutes
2nd Avenue/El
Camino Real
Caltrain -
Northbound:

Gilroy to San
Francisco
5:30 AM – 12:15
AM
30 minutes San Mateo Station
Caltrain -
Southbound: San
Francisco to
Gilroy
5:30 AM – 12:40
AM
30 minutes San Mateo Station
969 of 1252
H:\24\24837 - San Mateo On-Call TIAs\009 - San Mateo Draeger's (222 E 4th Ave) TIA\report\figs\24837.009-Figures.dwg Aug 29, 2022 - 5:06pm - dbowers Layout Tab: Existing Transit Services Existing Transit Services 8
San Mateo Hayward Park Station Transportation Impact Analysis Figure
Site
Legend:

ECR
Route 397
Route 55
Route 250
4th Ave
3rd Ave
2nd Ave
5th Ave
6th Ave
7th Ave
8th Ave
B St
Laurel Ave
San Mateo Dr
Ellsworth Ave
B St
Claremont St
Delaware St
Railroad Ave
1st Ave
El Camino Real
9th Ave
Route 59
Route 53
Route 292
Route 295
970 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 17

EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
The nearest fire station (San Mateo Fire Department Station #21) is located approximately 0.2 miles west of the project site at 120 S Ellsworth Ave. The proposed plans indicate that the bulb outs at each intersection surrounding the project site can accommodate the turning radius of a fire truck.

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
The estimated traffic volumes due to COVID-19 conditions for four of the study intersections and collected traffic counts at Laurel Avenue/5th Avenue, lane configurations, and traffic controls for each study intersection were used to assess the Existing Conditions LOS and delay. The projected turning movement volumes for each peak hour under Existing Conditions are provided in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Detailed calculation worksheets for the Existing Conditions are provided in Appendix B. These delay and LOS values can be compared to the City of San Mateo thresholds outlined in the Circulation Element of the 2030 General Plan, discussed in the previous section.

As mentioned in the previous section, intersection analyses for the four study intersections were conducted using the operational methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)6th Edition methodology, calculated with Synchro 11 software.

Table 4 demonstrates that all intersections operate to the City’s standards under existing conditions for both the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 4: Existing Conditions Intersection Operations Results # Location Control AM PM
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue TWSC 15.1 C 15.3 C
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue TWSC 12.2 B 12.7 B
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street Signal 14.2 B 14.9 B
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street Signal 9.7 A 9.5 A
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue Signal 10.1 B 12.4 B
Notes: Bold lettering indicates an intersection that does not meet the City’s minimum acceptable design level of service (LOS D for Signalized intersections); TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; AM = weekday a.m. peak hour; PM = weekday p.m. peak hour; LOS = Level of Service; Delay reported in seconds per vehicle; No = intersection number. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition; Kittelson & Associates, 2022
971 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 18
Figure 9: Existing and Baseline (Opening Year) Lane Configurations and Traffic Control at Study Intersections 972 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 19
Figure 10: Existing Conditions Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes 973 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 20
Figure 11: Existing Conditions Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes 974 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 21

BASELINE (OPENING YEAR) CONDITIONS
This section presents Baseline (Opening Year) traffic conditions, which are defined as conditions just prior to the completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for the Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic counts and traffic generated by other approved developments in the project vicinity.

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
The Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions analysis assumes the same lane configuration and traffic control at all the study intersections as the existing conditions, as shown in Figure 9.

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic volumes for the Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions were calculated using the existing estimated traffic volumes, shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11, plus the traffic volumes generated by new developments within the site vicinity. Through conversations with the city, the new developments added to the existing volumes are as follows:
 406 E 3rd Avenue Office & Residential Mixed-Use Development  480 E 4th Avenue Residential Development
 405 E 4th Avenue (mixed-use office and residential)
The projected turning movement volumes for each peak hour under Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions are provided in Figure 12 and Figure 13. Table 5 shows the Baseline (Opening Year) intersection operations for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Detailed calculation worksheets for the Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions are provided in Appendix C. All intersections operate to the City’s standards under Baseline (Opening Year) conditions under both the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 5: Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions Intersection Operations Results # Location Control AM PM
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue TWSC 13.3 B 13.0 B
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue TWSC 11.3 B 11.2 B
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street Signal 14.3 B 15.3 B
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street Signal 9.7 A 10.2 B
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue Signal 7.1 A 9.2 A
Notes: Bold lettering indicates an intersection that does not meet the City’s minimum acceptable design level of service (LOS D for Signalized intersections); TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; AM = weekday a.m. peak hour; PM = weekday p.m. peak hour; LOS = Level of Service; Delay reported in seconds per vehicle; No = intersection number. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition; Kittelson & Associates, 2022
975 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 22
Figure 12: Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes 976 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 23
Figure 13: Baseline (Opening Year) Conditions Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes 977 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 24

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation is a key consideration for determining local effects of the project on the transportation network. Trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition were used to estimate the number of trips the mixed-use proposed project would generate. ITE trip estimates are tied to specific land use codes. The ITE land use codes found to be most applicable to the Project are listed below.
• Supermarket (ITE 850)
• General Office Building (ITE 710)
• Affordable Housing (ITE 223)
In addition, this Project is assumed to be in the ‘Dense Multi-Use Urban’ context, considered by ITE to be an area that has diverse and interacting complementary land uses with good pedestrian connectivity, and convenient and frequent transit service. This is consistent with the Transit Oriented Development overlay and CBD zoning for the project site for which the San Mateo Municipal code promotes mixed-uses and pedestrian activity.

As summarized in Table 6, the proposed project is estimated to generate 169 vehicle trips (120 inbound, 49 outbound) during the weekday AM peak hour and 201 vehicle trips (70 inbound, 131 outbound) during the weekday PM peak hour. The existing Draeger’s supermarket is estimated to generate 304 vehicle trips (167 inbound, 137 outbound) during the weekday AM peak hour and 432 vehicle trips (216 inbound, 216 outbound) during the weekday PM peak hour. The proposed project generates less AM and PM peak hour trips when compared to the AM and PM peak hour trips currently being generated by the existing Draeger’s supermarket.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The vehicle trip distribution assumptions are based on the existing counts and proximity to the major arterials, state routes, and freeways. As noted above, the proposed project would generate less peak hour trips with a reduction of 135 trips in the morning peak hour and 231 trips in the afternoon peak hour when compared to the trips generated from the existing site. The driveways for the existing site are situated on Ellsworth Avenue, and the driveway for the proposed project site is situated on 5th Avenue. Vehicle traffic going to/from the existing and proposed project site are distributed at each intersection according to the turning movement proportions consistent with the existing counts and the vehicle trip distribution percentages are determined for AM and PM peak hour. The complete project travel demand memorandum submitted to the City is provided in Appendix A. 978 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 25
Table 6: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size
Weekday
Daily Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project
Retail (Supermarket) 17.6 KSF 1,891 48 40 88 82 82 164
Office Space 104.7 KSF 1,208 77 11 88 15 76 91
Affordable Housing 10 DU 38 1 4 5 2 2 4
Internal Capture -233 -6 -6 -12 -11 -11 -22
Pass-by reduction
(24% PM only)
0 0 0 0 -18 -18 -36
Total Proposed Project
Trips
2,904 120 49 169 70 131 201
Existing Project
Retail (Supermarket) 61 KSF 6,549 167 137 304 284 284 568 Pass-by reduction
(24% PM only)
0 0 0 0 -68 -68 -136
Total Existing Trips 6,549 167 137 304 216 216 432
Net New Project Trips -3,645 -47 -88 -135 -146 -84 -231 Updated square footage for the retail portion of the proposed project from 104.7 KSF to 104.5 KSF did not change the proposed project trips generated.

BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic volumes for the Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions were developed by combining the Baseline estimated traffic volumes with the project only volumes. The resulting Baseline Plus Project turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15. Table 7 shows the Baseline Plus Project intersection operations for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Detailed calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix D. All intersections operate to the City’s standards under Baseline Plus Project conditions under both the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 7: Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions Intersection Operations Results # Location Control AM PM
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue TWSC 14.4 B 14.3 B
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue TWSC 11.7 B 11.9 B
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street Signal 14.6 B 15.6 B
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street Signal 9.7 A 10.3 B
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue Signal 7.1 A 9.2 A
Notes: Bold lettering indicates an intersection that does not meet the City’s minimum acceptable design level of service (LOS D for Signalized intersections); TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; AM = weekday a.m. peak hour; PM = weekday p.m. peak hour; LOS = Level of Service; Delay reported in seconds per vehicle; No = intersection number. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition; Kittelson & Associates, 2022
979 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 26
Figure 14: Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes 980 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 27
Figure 15: Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes 981 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 28

CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
This section presents the anticipated Cumulative conditions for the study intersections for the year 2040 and the effect the addition of the project trips would have on them.

LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION NETWORK CHANGES The C/CAG San Mateo County Travel Demand Model was used to develop the future volume forecast for Cumulative Conditions. The model includes future development throughout the region. The 2040 cumulative forecasts are consistent with regional growth totals projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area9. Therefore, the traffic forecasts reflect traffic reflecting both growth in 222 East 4th Avenue mixed use project and increases in traffic volumes on State Route 82 and US 101 due to regional growth. Base year (Year 2019) and future year (Year 2040) forecasts were extracted from the model and linearly interpolated to develop growth between the estimated existing traffic counts (2019) and the current model horizon year (2040). The intersection lane configurations under cumulative conditions were assumed to be the same as described under the existing conditions.

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
The projected turning movement volumes for each peak hour under Cumulative Conditions are provided in Figure 16 and Figure 17. Based on these volumes and lane configurations, the cumulative operations at the study intersections are shown in Table 8. Detailed calculation worksheets for the Cumulative Conditions are provided in Appendix E. All intersections operate to the City’s standards under Cumulative conditions under both the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 8: Cumulative Conditions Intersection Operations Results # Location Control AM PM
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue TWSC 13.7 B 13.5 B
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue TWSC 11.5 B 11.7 B
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street Signal 11.5 B 14.1 B
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street Signal 10.8 B 11.5 B
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue Signal 7.6 A 10.7 B
Notes: Bold lettering indicates an intersection that does not meet the City’s minimum acceptable design level of service (LOS D for Signalized intersections); TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; AM = weekday a.m. peak hour; PM = weekday p.m. peak hour; LOS = Level of Service; Delay reported in seconds per vehicle; No = intersection number. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition; Kittelson & Associates, 2022
9 https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/plan-bay-area-2040 982 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 29
Figure 16: Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes 983 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 30
Figure 17: Cumulative Conditions Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes 984 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 31

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section discusses the effect of proposed project on traffic operations under Cumulative Conditions.

Traffic volumes for the Cumulative Plus Project Conditions were developed using the same additive approach used for the Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project volumes.

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Based on these volumes and lane configurations, the Cumulative Plus Project volumes are shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19 and the operations at the study intersections are shown in Table 9. Detailed calculation worksheets for the Cumulative Plus Project Conditions are provided in Appendix F. Based on the significance criteria previously described the proposed project would not cause operational deficiencies at any of the study intersections.

Table 9: Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Operations Results # Location Control AM PM
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue TWSC 15.0 C 15.0 C
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue TWSC 12.0 B 12.3 B
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street Signal 11.9 B 14.8 B
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street Signal 11.0 B 11.7 B
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue Signal 7.6 A 10.7 B
Notes: Bold lettering indicates an intersection that does not meet the City’s minimum acceptable design level of service (LOS D for Signalized intersections); TWSC = Two-Way Stop Control; AM = weekday a.m. peak hour; PM = weekday p.m. peak hour; LOS = Level of Service; Delay reported in seconds per vehicle; No = intersection number. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition; Kittelson & Associates, 2022
985 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 32
Figure 18: Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Peak Hour (AM) Turning Movement Volumes 986 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 33
Figure 19: Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Peak Hour (PM) Turning Movement Volumes 987 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 34

ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
This section describes additional transportation analysis related to site access and circulation of the proposed project based on a review of the proposed site plan. This section includes analysis of the following characteristics and scenarios:
 Vehicular access and on-site circulation
o Vehicle parking
o Driveway sight distance
 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit access
 Loading zone and garbage truck circulation and access  Emergency vehicle access
 95th percentile queue analysis
The analysis in the following sections, while informed by adopted State and local standards, is driven by professional judgement. Citations are provided where applicable and available. References to the proposed project characteristics and geometric features are per the most recent site plan published February 2022.10

VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION
Site access and on-site circulation were evaluated using commonly accepted transportation design, planning principles and professional judgment. The site access and circulation were evaluated to determine the adequacy of site’s driveways with regard to traffic volumes, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, site distance, and truck access. In general, the site plan shows adequate site access at the project driveways and circulation within the site.

The proposed project would replace the existing Draeger’s market with a mixed-use building. The project proposes to construct a parking garage with a 24 ft wide driveway fronting the north side of 5th Avenue.

The drive aisle in the garage level would be 24 ft wide, which is adequate for two-way circulation of vehicular traffic and complies with the width requirement for two-way turning aisles or ramps.

In detail, the project proposes to construct a three-level parking garage with ground floor including 12,392 square feet of covered parking area and two levels (89,519 square feet) below grade for a total of 221 parking spaces. Vehicle parking will include a mix of compact, standard, accessible (standard), accessible (van), and EV charging stations. Angled parking will be retained along the project frontage on Ellsworth Avenue and 4th Avenue. There is angled on-street parking on the south side on 5th Avenue which is being restriped to parallel stalls. A review of City Standard Drawings for parking stalls11 found that the project’s proposed parking dimensions are in compliance with City specifications for accessible, compact, and standard stall types.

Vehicle Parking
As noted in a prior section in this report, the project is proposing to provide fewer spaces (221) than minimally required by City parking regulations (320). A parking study conducted concluded that the Project is expected to generate demand for 208 parking spaces, indicating that the parking provided at the Project site will meet parking demand.

10 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4386/222-E-4th-Ave-Draegers (Accessed October 2022) 11 Standard Drawings | San Mateo, CA - Official Website (cityofsanmateo.org) 988 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 35
Driveway Sight Distance
The project proposes to construct a parking garage with a 24 ft wide driveway fronting the north side of 5th Avenue. This width is in compliance with City standards (12’) when serving more than two off-street parking spaces (Chapter 27.64). The 5th Avenue roadway segments that approach the garage ingress/egress do not have severe grade or curves.

Sight distance is the continuous length of the roadway ahead, visible to the roadway user. Sight distance requirements vary depending on roadway speeds. The posted limit on 5th Avenue is 25 mph (i.e., design speed of 30 mph). Per the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual 405.1 (2)(d), the corner sight distance requirements do not apply to urban driveways, unless they are signalized.

Since this project proposes an unsignalized driveway, per the Caltrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014, Revision 6), a clearance of 6 feet measured from the curb return should be provided at alleys and driveways (Section 3B.19). No on-street parking is proposed on 5th Avenue, leaving clear sight lines into and out of the driveway.

This project proposes project driveways that least interfere with traffic movements and vulnerable users per City off-street parking standards (Chapter 27.64). The project proposes to plant Silverleaf Oak trees along 5th Avenue, including on either side of the garage entrance and exit. Landscaping must be maintained properly to ensure it does not impede roadway visibility. There are no existing bike lanes on the roadway, however the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan proposes a class II bike lane which would pass by the project driveway. No major conflicts and concerns pertaining to driveway access are evident in the proposed site plan.

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
Pedestrians can access the site from entries on Ellsworth Avenue (to the office), B Street (to the public parking, residences, or retail use), or through the 4th Ave building frontage (retail use). The project site proposes sidewalks along all the parcel boundaries as well as a pedestrian plaza and parklets at 4th Avenue and Ellsworth Avenue. The project would not generate activities that would interfere with access or circulation for people walking to, from, or passing by the site.

BICYCLE ACCESS
The proposed project would promote accessibility for people biking to the site by providing bicycle parking and a bike lane (Class II) along both sides of 5th Avenue between Ellsworth Avenue and B Street. The project would not generate activities that would interfere with access or circulation for people biking.

BIKE PARKING
The project proposes to provide 38 bicycle parking spaces which includes short- and long-term parking split among the different parcel land uses. A 292 SF bike room will be provided on the ground floor and a 134 SF bike storage facility is located on the fifth floor. Bike racks are proposed along the site on all four sides of the building.
 Long Term Bike Parking
o Commercial – 10
o Residential – 10
o Retail – 1
 Short Term Bike Parking
o Commercial – 5
o Residential – 1
o Retail – 14
989 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 36
The ground floor bike room is accessible from the Ellsworth Avenue entrance, separating cyclists from vehicle traffic in the garage and minimizing conflicts between the modes.

TRANSIT ACCESS
Access to transit facilities and services outlined in the Existing Conditions section will not change with the proposed site plan.

HAZARDS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
Loading Zone and Garbage Trucks
The project proposes to expand the existing 105 ft commercial loading zone on B Street to 120 ft. The project site plans show three trash rooms: a grocery trash room with access on B Street, an office/cafeteria trash room on Ellsworth Avenue, and a residential trash room. Garbage trucks would access trash collector areas via B Street and Ellsworth Avenue.

The project should ensure that access to and from the trash area on B street for garbage trucks does not create or increase conflict with bikes through inadequate site lines or staging within the bike lane. In addition, trash bins should not encroach the public right of way, including the bike lane. The trash bins should be removed from the public right-of-way immediately after garbage pickup as to not impact AM or PM peak hour traffic conditions.

Emergency Vehicle Access
The nearest fire station (San Mateo Fire Department Station #21) is located approximately 0.2 miles west of the project site at 120 S Ellsworth Ave. The proposed plans indicate that the bulb outs at each intersection surrounding the project site can accommodate the turning radius of a fire truck. Per City requirements, all driveways and drive aisles are at least 20 feet wide and would accommodate Emergency Vehicle access.

Therefore, smaller emergency trucks and vans would also be able to access the parking garage. 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE ANALYSIS
In addition to the operations analysis, Kittelson also reviewed the changes in 95th percentile queue lengths for the study intersections. Queue lengths are typically evaluated as part of the network-level or designrelated considerations (i.e., to gauge interaction between nearby intersections). The 95th percentile queue lengths are reported to provide an appropriate storage for all but the worst 5% of traffic scenarios. This report provides queue lengths, which are derived from the outputs of the Synchro traffic analysis software and are representative of the 95th percentile traffic volumes12. The 95th percentile queue length worksheets are provided in Appendix G.

Table 10 through Table 12 show the 95th percentile queue lengths for the Existing, Baseline (Opening Year), Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Movements where the expected 95th percentile queue length exceeds storage capacity during the weekday peak hours are highlighted in grey in each of the tables shown below.

Storage capacity is exceeded for the following scenarios:
 E 4th Ave/B Street, EB and SB approaches – Cumulative Conditions (AM)  E 4th Ave/B Street, EB and SB approaches – Cumulative Conditions (PM)  E 4th Ave/B Street, EB and SB approaches – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (AM) 12 Microsimulation of queues using SimTraffic, another analysis software package, was not performed because this model is typically used in the design phase of a project. For a planning level study, industry practice is to use the Synchro outputs. 990 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 37
 E 4th Ave/B Street, EB and SB approaches – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (PM)  E 4th Ave/Ellsworth Avenue, EB approach – Cumulative Conditions (PM)  E 4th Ave/Ellsworth Avenue, EB approach – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (PM) Although storage capacity is exceeded in these scenarios, queue lengths do not increase with respect to plus project scenarios when compared to no project scenarios. Thus, the proposed project does not impact the status quo.
991 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 38
Table 10: 95th Percentile Queue Lengths for Existing Conditions # Location Scenario
95th Percentile Queue Length (number of vehicles)
EB Approach WB Approach NB Approach SB Approach

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Weekday AM Peak Hour
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue No Project - - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - 2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - 3 E 5th Avenue/B Street No Project - 6 - - 5 - - 3 - - 1 - 4 E 4th Avenue/B Street No Project - 3 - - 2 - - 2 - - 5 - 5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 6 - - 3 - - 2 - - 5 - Weekday PM Peak Hour
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue No Project - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - 3 E 5th Avenue/B Street No Project - 9 - - 6 - - 4 - - 2 - 4 E 4th Avenue/B Street No Project - 4 - - 3 - - 3 - - 6 - 5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 11 - - 4 - - 3 - - 8 - Notes: EBL = Eastbound Left; EBT = Eastbound Through; EBR = Eastbound Right; similar for W = Westbound, N = Northbound, and S = Southbound movements; AWSC: All-Way Stop Control ‘-‘ = Particular movement is not relevant to the intersection, Bold cells are 95th percentile queue lengths greater than existing storage. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition; Kittelson & Associates, 2022.
992 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 39
Table 11: 95th Percentile Queue Lengths for Baseline (Opening Year) and Baseline (Opening Year) Plus Project Conditions # Location
(Control) Scenario
95th Percentile Queue Length (number of vehicles)
EB Approach WB Approach NB Approach SB Approach

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Weekday AM Peak Hour
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue No Project - - - 0 - - 1 - - - - - Plus Project - - - 1 - - 2 - - - - -
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 0 - - - - - - - 1 - - Plus Project - 0 - - - - - - - 1 - -
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street No Project - 6 - - 6 - - 3 - - 1 - Plus Project - 7 - - 6 - - 3 - - 1 -
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street No Project - 3 - - 2 - - 2 - - 5 - Plus Project - 3 - - 2 - - 2 - - 5 -
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 4 - - 2 - - 0 - - 3 - Plus Project - 4 - - 2 - - 0 - - 3 -
Weekday PM Peak Hour
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue No Project - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - Plus Project - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - -
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 0 - - - - - - - 1 - - Plus Project - 0 - - - - - - - 1 - -
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street No Project - 9 - - 6 - - 4 - - 2 - Plus Project - 10 - - 6 - - 5 - - 2 -
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street No Project - 4 - - 2 - - 3 - - 6 - Plus Project - 4 - - 2 - - 4 - - 6 -
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 8 - - 4 - - 0 - - 5 - Plus Project - 8 - - 4 - - 0 - - 5 -
Notes: EBL = Eastbound Left; EBT = Eastbound Through; EBR = Eastbound Right; similar for W = Westbound, N = Northbound, and S = Southbound movements; AWSC: All-Way Stop Control ‘-‘ = Particular movement is not relevant to the intersection, Bold cells are 95th percentile queue lengths greater than existing storage. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition; Kittelson & Associates, 2022.
993 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 40
Table 12: 95th Percentile Queue Lengths for Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions # Location
(Control) Scenario
95th Percentile Queue Length (number of vehicles)
EB Approach WB Approach NB Approach SB Approach

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Weekday AM Peak Hour
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue No Project - - - 0 - - 1 - - - - - Plus Project - - - 1 - - 2 - - - - -
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 0 - - - - - - - 1 - - Plus Project - 0 - - - - - - - 1 - -
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street No Project - 7 - - 6 - - 9 - - 2 - Plus Project - 7 - - 7 - - 9 - - 2 -
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street No Project - 17 - - 3 - - 4 - - 14 - Plus Project - 17 - - 3 - - 5 - - 14 -
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 8 - - 2 - - 0 - - 3 - Plus Project - 8 - - 2 - - 0 - - 3 -
Weekday PM Peak Hour
1 E 5th Avenue/Laurel Avenue No Project - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - Plus Project - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - -
2 E 5th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 0 - - - - - - - 1 - - Plus Project - 0 - - - - - - - 1 - -
3 E 5th Avenue/B Street No Project - 10 - - 7 - - 9 - - 3 - Plus Project - 12 - - 7 - - 9 - - 3 -
4 E 4th Avenue/B Street No Project - 25 - - 4 - - 6 - - 12 - Plus Project - 25 - - 4 - - 6 - - 12 -
5 E 4th Avenue/Ellsworth Avenue No Project - 19 - - 6 - - 0 - - 6 - Plus Project - 19 - - 6 - - 0 - - 6 -
Notes: EBL = Eastbound Left; EBT = Eastbound Through; EBR = Eastbound Right; similar for W = Westbound, N = Northbound, and S = Southbound movements; AWSC: All-Way Stop Control ‘-‘ = Particular movement is not relevant to the intersection, Bold cells are 95th percentile queue lengths greater than existing storage. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition; Kittelson & Associates, 2022.
994 of 1252
October 26, 2022
San Mateo Draeger’s TIA Report Local Transportation Analysis Kittelson & Associates Page 41

TECHNICAL APPENDIX
995 of 1252
Appendix A Travel
Demand Memo
996 of 1252
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) prepared this memorandum for the 222 East 4th Avenue Project at the existing Draeger’s site in San Mateo, California (Project). The Project proposes to redevelop the existing Draeger Market into a mixed-use building with office, residential, and retail space. Site access will be accommodated for personal and delivery vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians.

Project Description
Lane Partners is proposing to replace the existing 60,965 square feet Draeger’s market located at 222 East 4th Avenue with a 5-story, approximately 152,533 square feet mixed-use building with two levels of below grade parking. The building would consist of approximately 104,554 square feet of office space, 17,658 square feet of retail space, and 8,997 square feet of residential space for 10 below-market-rate units at the lower income level. The retail floor would be located on the ground floor, the office space would be spread throughout the first four floors, and the residential space would be split between the ground floor (i.e., residential lobby/elevator) and the fifth floor living areas. The ground floor would also include 12,392 square feet of covered parking area and two levels (89,519 square feet) below grade for a total of 221 parking spaces. The Project site plan is shown in Figure 1.

The Project site is in downtown San Mateo and is zoned as Central Business District/Residential Overlay District – Mixed Use (CBD). The site is also in a designated “Transit Oriented Development” area as it is within a half mile of the San Mateo Caltrain station.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
August 22, 2022 Project# 24837.009
To: Wendy Lao
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
From: Anusha Musunuru, PhD; Allison Woodworth; Mychal Loomis, PE CC: Mike Kato, Bethany Lopez, Sue-Ellen Atkinson
RE: San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT 997 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 2
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1: Proposed Mixed-Use Project Site Plan
Source: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4386/222-E-4th-Ave-Draegers Existing Conditions
Kittelson obtained the multimodal intersection turning movement counts at three of the five study intersections from the City for the weekday a.m. (7-9 am) and p.m. (4-6 pm) peak period when the existing project site generated trips. The multimodal intersection turning movement counts for the remaining two study intersections were obtained using the Streetlight data. These turning movement counts obtained from Streetlight data were adjusted so that the intersection entry and exit volumes match the adjacent counts collected at the other study intersections.

1. Laurel Avenue/5th Avenue (Streetlight data)

2. Ellsworth Avenue/5th Avenue (Field collected data)

3. B Street/5th Avenue (Field collected data)

4. B Street/4th Avenue (Field collected data)
998 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 3
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

5. Ellsworth Avenue/4th Avenue (Streetlight data)
Figure 1 illustrates the locations of the five study intersections. Based on the collected counts and adjusted streetlight data at all five intersections, peak hours were 7:45 – 8:45 am and 5:00 – 6:00 pm. The existing volumes (and counts) are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Figure 1: Study Intersections
Table 1: Existing Intersection Volumes (AM peak hour)*
Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Laurel Ave/5th Ave 186 - 131 - - - - 189 162 244 103 -
Ellsworth Ave/5th Ave - - - 21 - 63 36 284 - - 284 10
B Street/5th Ave 32 126 56 13 94 23 16 251 54 21 239 11 B Street/4th Ave 13 97 44 62 103 59 21 362 20 7 87 7
Ellsworth Ave/4th Ave 0 69 0 54 113 77 13 349 23 0 134 25 *Note: These volumes include existing site generated trips 999 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 4
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 2: Existing Intersection Volumes (PM peak hour)*
Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Laurel Ave/5th Ave 95 - 0 - - - - 363 139 66 280 -
Ellsworth Ave/5th Ave - - - 32 - 120 45 318 - - 226 27
B Street/5th Ave 38 137 72 18 117 34 38 321 55 25 223 30 B Street/4th Ave 18 127 55 60 112 97 37 509 47 10 111 22 Ellsworth Ave/4th Ave 78 30 0 106 152 81 9 487 36 0 186 40 *Note: These volumes include existing site generated trips Vehicle Trip Generation

ITE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CODES
Trip generation is a key consideration for determining local effects of the project on the transportation network. Trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition were used to estimate the number of trips the mixed-use proposed project would generate. ITE trip estimates are tied to specific land use codes. The ITE land use codes found to be most applicable to the Project are listed below.
• Supermarket (ITE 850)
• General Office Building (ITE 710)
• Affordable Housing (ITE 223)
In addition, this Project is assumed to be in the ‘Dense Multi-Use Urban’ context, considered by ITE to be an area that has diverse and interacting complementary land uses with good pedestrian connectivity, and convenient and frequent transit service. This is consistent with the Transit Oriented Development overlay and CBD zoning for the project site for which the San Mateo Municipal code promotes mixed-uses and pedestrian activity. Table 2 below shows the trip generation rates used for the analysis.

Table 3: Trip Generation Rates, ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition Land Use
ITE
Code
Land Use
Context Units*
Weekday
Daily
Rate
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
Rate In % Out % Rate In % Out %
Retail
(Supermarket)
850 Dense
Multi-Use
Urban
1000 SF
GFA
107.42 4.99 55% 45% 9.32 50% 50%
Office Space 710 Dense
Multi-Use
Urban
1000 SF
GFA
none
provided

0.84 87% 13% 0.87 16% 84%
Office Space 710 General
Urban/
Suburban1
1000 SF
GFA
Fitted
Curve2
Affordable
Housing
223 Dense
Multi-Use
Urban
DU 3.83 0.5 29% 71% 0.36 61% 39%
*: GFA – Gross Floor Area, SF – Square Feet, DU – Dwelling Units 1: The weekday daily rate for General Urban/Suburban land use was used for Office Space (ITE 710) as no vehicle rate was provided for the Dense Multi-Use Urban land use context. 2: ITE 710 (General Urban/Suburban) daily rate fitted curve equation: Ln(T) = 0.87 Ln(X) + 3.05 1000 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 5
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION
Trip generation estimates for this Project took into consideration three types of trips:
• Primary or New: These are the trips whose specific purpose was to visit the site. Primary trip rates were generated using ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. • Pass-by: Drivers already on their way to a destination that stop temporarily at the Project Site without a major roadway diversion are considered making “pass-by” trips. Supermarket 850 is the only land use code in ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition for which a pass-by rate was supplied.

The 24% average pass-by rate for this land use was only applicable for Weekday PM Peak, resulting in a reduction of 39 trips.
• Internal: Trips that occur between land-uses on a multi-use project site and which can be made without using the off-site street network are considered “internal trips”. Internal trips for this project can be made by walking between uses. Internal capture was estimated using methodology from NCHRP Report 684 – Enhancing Internal Trip Capture for Mixed-Use Developments.

The existing Draeger’s market was included as existing trip credits as it currently generates trips to and from the site. Pass-by trips were also applied to the existing supermarket use.

Table 3 provides a summary of the proposed project’s trip generation. As shown in the table, the net new trip generation would be a reduction of 3,645 average daily weekday trips with a reduction of 135 new trips occurring the morning peak and a reduction of 231 new trips occurring the afternoon peak.

Table 4: Proposed Project Net Trip Generation Calculations Land Use Size
Weekday
Daily Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project
Retail (Supermarket) 17.6 KSF 1,891 48 40 88 82 82 164
Office Space 104.7 KSF 1,208 77 11 88 15 76 91
Affordable Housing 10 DU 38 1 4 5 2 2 4
Internal Capture -233 -6 -6 -12 -11 -11 -22
Pass-by reduction
(24% PM only)
0 0 0 0 -18 -18 -36
Total Proposed
Project Trips
2,904 120 49 169 70 131 201
Existing Project
Retail (Supermarket) 61 KSF 6,549 167 137 304 284 284 568 Pass-by reduction
(24% PM only)
0 0 0 0 -68 -68 -136
Total Existing Trips 6,549 167 137 304 216 216 432
Net New Project Trips -3,645 -47 -88 -135 -146 -84 -231 Note: Updated square footage for the office space portion of the proposed project from 104.7 KSF to 104.5 KSF did not change the proposed project trips generated.

Vehicle Trip Distribution
The vehicle trip distribution assumptions are based on the existing counts and proximity to the major arterials and freeways. As shown above, the proposed project would generate less peak hour trips with a reduction of 135 trips in the morning peak hour and 231 trips in the afternoon peak hour when compared to 1001 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 6
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
the trips generated from the existing site. The driveways for the existing site are situated on Ellsworth Avenue, and the driveway for the proposed project site is situated on 5th Avenue. Vehicle traffic going to/from the existing and proposed project site are distributed at each intersection according to the turning movement proportions consistent with the existing counts. Existing project vehicle trip distribution percentages are illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3 for AM and PM, and proposed project vehicle trip distribution percentages are illustrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5 for AM and PM, respectively. Table 5 and Table 6 illustrate the existing plus project intersection volumes during the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours, respectively.

Figure 2: Existing Project Vehicle Trip Distribution (AM) 1002 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 7
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 3: Existing Project Vehicle Trip Distribution (PM) 1003 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 8
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 4: Proposed Project Vehicle Trip Distribution (AM) 1004 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 9
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 5: Proposed Project Vehicle Trip Distribution (PM) Table 5: Existing plus Project Intersection Volumes (AM Peak Hour)* Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Laurel Ave/5th Ave 186 - 140 - - - - 203 162 224 95 -
Ellsworth Ave/5th Ave - - - 4 - 12 0 343 - - 307 0
B Street/5th Ave 38 126 56 13 94 27 16 258 55 21 281 11 B Street/4th Ave 13 97 44 62 106 59 21 362 21 7 87 7
Ellsworth Ave/4th Ave 0 0 0 54 13 77 13 350 2 0 134 25
*Note: These volumes do not include existing site generated trips (i.e., existing site generated trips were subtracted from the existing volumes and proposed site generated trips are added to get existing plus project volumes). 1005 of 1252
August 22, 2022 Page 10
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 6: Existing plus Project Intersection Volumes (PM Peak Hour)* Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Laurel Ave/5th Ave 95 - 0 - - - - 354 139 59 248 -
Ellsworth Ave/5th Ave - - - 9 - 35 0 354 - - 272 0
B Street/5th Ave 39 137 72 18 117 35 44 369 63 25 228 30 B Street/4th Ave 19 131 56 60 113 97 37 509 47 10 111 22 Ellsworth Ave/4th Ave 0 0 0 106 36 81 9 488 8 0 187 40
*Note: These volumes do not include existing site generated trips (i.e., existing site generated trips were subtracted from the existing volumes and proposed site generated trips are added to get existing plus project volumes).

Next Steps
Pending City’s review of this memorandum, a determination has to be made whether further traffic analysis is required or not, based on the existing and proposed vehicle trip distribution and intersection volumes. 1006 of 1252
Appendix B Existing
Conditions Synchro
Worksheets
1007 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 45 228 51 42 243
Future Vol, veh/h 81 45 228 51 42 243
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 49 248 55 46 264
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 632 276 0 0 303 0
Stage 1 276 - - - - -
Stage 2 356 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 429 757 - - 1258 -
Stage 1 759 - - - - -
Stage 2 695 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 411 757 - - 1258 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 411 - - - - -
Stage 1 759 - - - - -
Stage 2 665 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 0 1.2

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 491 1258 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.279 0.036 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.1 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.1 -
1008 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 113 77 0 69 0 13 349 23 0 134 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 54 113 77 0 69 0 13 349 23 0 134 25 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 123 84 0 75 0 14 379 25 0 146 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 134 178 107 0 380 0 81 1119 72 0 1002 185
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 264 876 526 0 1870 0 21 1777 114 0 1592 294 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 266 0 0 0 75 0 418 0 0 0 0 173
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1667 0 0 0 1870 0 1913 0 0 0 0 1886 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.22 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 419 0 0 0 380 0 1272 0 0 0 0 1187 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 810 0 0 0 830 0 1272 0 0 0 0 1187 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 LnGrp LOS C A A A B A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 266 75 418 173
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 18.3 5.5 0.3
Approach LOS C B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 39.2 15.8 39.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.4 21.4 24.4 21.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.2 2.0 3.8 7.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.6 0.2 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 1009 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 63 36 284 284 10
Future Vol, veh/h 21 63 36 284 284 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 23 68 39 309 309 11
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 702 315 320 0 - 0
Stage 1 315 - - - - -
Stage 2 387 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 392 724 1251 - - -
Stage 1 732 - - - - -
Stage 2 676 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 377 724 1251 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 377 - - - - -
Stage 1 704 - - - - -
Stage 2 676 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 0.9 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1251 - 589 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 - 0.155 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 12.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 - -
1010 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 94 23 32 126 56 16 251 54 21 239 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 94 23 32 126 56 16 251 54 21 239 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1856 1707 1900 1870 1841 1884 1976 1945 1899 1961 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 102 25 35 137 61 17 273 59 23 260 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 3 13 0 2 4 6 0 2 5 1 0
Cap, veh/h 133 859 198 188 695 286 78 355 74 88 409 18
Arrive On Green 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 96 1339 309 175 1084 447 42 1533 321 76 1765 78 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 141 0 0 233 0 0 349 0 0 295 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1744 0 0 1706 0 0 1896 0 0 1919 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.10 0.18 0.15 0.26 0.05 0.17 0.08 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1191 0 0 1169 0 0 508 0 0 515 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1191 0 0 1169 0 0 939 0 0 941 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.73 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A C A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 141 233 349 295
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.5 20.5 19.5
Approach LOS A A C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.8 16.2 38.8 16.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 25.5 22.5 25.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 9.5 5.0 11.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2
HCM 6th LOS B
1011 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Existing 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 62 103 59 13 97 44 21 362 20 7 87 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 62 103 59 13 97 44 21 362 20 7 87 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1870 1900 1885 1796 1899 1930 1899 1976 1930 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 112 64 14 105 48 23 393 22 8 95 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 2 0 1 7 5 3 5 0 3 0
Cap, veh/h 148 163 82 84 230 98 96 1161 63 110 1093 88
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow, veh/h 340 857 428 70 1204 514 41 1759 95 61 1655 133 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 243 0 0 167 0 0 438 0 0 111 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1625 0 0 1789 0 0 1894 0 0 1849 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.28 0.26 0.08 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 393 0 0 412 0 0 1320 0 0 1291 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 765 0 0 831 0 0 1320 0 0 1291 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.6 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 243 167 438 111
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 20.1 0.6 3.5
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.6 40.4 14.6 40.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.9 22.9 23.9 22.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 3.2 6.6 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.3 0.6 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7
HCM 6th LOS A
1012 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 27 269 90 52 198
Future Vol, veh/h 61 27 269 90 52 198
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 66 29 292 98 57 215
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 670 341 0 0 390 0
Stage 1 341 - - - - -
Stage 2 329 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 407 695 - - 1169 -
Stage 1 707 - - - - -
Stage 2 716 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 385 695 - - 1169 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 385 - - - - -
Stage 1 707 - - - - -
Stage 2 677 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 15.3 0 1.7

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 446 1169 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.214 0.048 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.3 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0.2 -
1013 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 106 152 81 78 30 0 9 487 36 0 186 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 106 152 81 78 30 0 9 487 36 0 186 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 165 88 85 33 0 10 529 39 0 202 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 188 212 103 273 91 0 62 1073 78 0 937 199
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 453 835 405 700 360 0 10 1776 129 0 1550 330 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 368 0 0 118 0 0 578 0 0 0 0 245
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1693 0 0 1060 0 0 1915 0 0 0 0 1880 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.3 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.31 0.24 0.72 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 503 0 0 365 0 0 1214 0 0 0 0 1136 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 749 0 0 557 0 0 1214 0 0 0 0 1136 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.9 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.6 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 368 118 578 245
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.6 20.3 8.6 0.4
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.1 43.9 21.1 43.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.4 29.4 26.4 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.3 2.0 8.0 13.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.9 0.4 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.4
HCM 6th LOS B
1014 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 120 45 318 226 27
Future Vol, veh/h 32 120 45 318 226 27
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 35 130 49 346 246 29
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 705 261 275 0 - 0
Stage 1 261 - - - - -
Stage 2 444 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 390 774 1300 - - -
Stage 1 776 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 372 774 1300 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 372 - - - - -
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 1 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1300 - 631 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - 0.262 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 12.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1 - -
1015 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 18 117 34 38 137 72 38 321 55 25 223 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 18 117 34 38 137 72 38 321 55 25 223 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1976 1961 1945 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 127 37 41 149 78 41 349 60 27 242 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 133 785 216 177 619 300 90 429 70 85 453 59
Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 117 1291 355 186 1018 494 103 1508 248 87 1594 206 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 184 0 0 268 0 0 450 0 0 302 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1763 0 0 1698 0 0 1858 0 0 1887 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.20 0.15 0.29 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1133 0 0 1096 0 0 589 0 0 597 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1133 0 0 1096 0 0 922 0 0 929 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.58 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A C A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 184 268 450 302
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.2 6.4 22.6 20.0
Approach LOS A A C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.0 22.0 43.0 22.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 30.5 27.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 10.6 6.5 16.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.9
HCM 6th LOS B
1016 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Existing 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Existing Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 112 97 18 127 55 37 509 47 10 111 22 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 112 97 18 127 55 37 509 47 10 111 22 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1811 1885 1841 1976 1945 1976 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 122 105 20 138 60 40 553 51 11 121 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 6 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 127 167 127 78 253 103 101 1114 99 102 995 189 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 Sat Flow, veh/h 283 804 611 85 1218 495 64 1673 149 64 1494 283 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 292 0 0 218 0 0 644 0 0 156 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1699 0 0 1798 0 0 1886 0 0 1842 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.22 0.36 0.09 0.28 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 421 0 0 434 0 0 1315 0 0 1286 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 724 0 0 759 0 0 1315 0 0 1286 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.4 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.2 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A B A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 292 218 644 156
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 17.1 1.1 4.1
Approach LOS C B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.6 47.4 17.6 47.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.9 30.9 25.9 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 3.9 8.1 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.5
HCM 6th LOS A
1017 of 1252
Appendix C Baseline
(Opening Year)
Conditions Synchro
Worksheets
1018 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 30 207 51 6 228
Future Vol, veh/h 81 30 207 51 6 228
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 33 225 55 7 248
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 515 253 0 0 280 0
Stage 1 253 - - - - -
Stage 2 262 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 505 780 - - 1283 -
Stage 1 778 - - - - -
Stage 2 771 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 502 780 - - 1283 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 502 - - - - -
Stage 1 778 - - - - -
Stage 2 766 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 0 0.2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 556 1283 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.217 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.3 7.8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0 -
1019 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 13 77 0 0 0 13 349 2 0 134 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 54 13 77 0 0 0 13 349 2 0 134 25
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 14 84 0 0 0 14 379 2 0 146 27
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 169 54 154 0 340 0 82 1236 6 0 1036 192
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 435 299 845 0 1870 0 23 1899 10 0 1592 294 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 157 0 0 0 0 0 395 0 0 0 0 173
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1579 0 0 0 1870 0 1931 0 0 0 0 1886 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 377 0 0 0 340 0 1325 0 0 0 0 1228 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 780 0 0 0 830 0 1325 0 0 0 0 1228 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 157 0 395 173
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.6 0.0 4.8 0.2
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.6 40.4 14.6 40.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.4 21.4 24.4 21.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 2.0 0.0 6.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 1020 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 12 0 330 308 0
Future Vol, veh/h 4 12 0 330 308 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 4 13 0 359 335 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 694 335 335 0 - 0
Stage 1 335 - - - - -
Stage 2 359 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 396 705 1236 - - -
Stage 1 716 - - - - -
Stage 2 697 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 396 705 1236 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 396 - - - - -
Stage 1 716 - - - - -
Stage 2 697 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1236 - 590 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.029 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1021 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 94 22 31 124 56 13 285 51 21 255 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 94 22 31 124 56 13 285 51 21 255 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1856 1707 1900 1870 1841 1884 1976 1945 1899 1961 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 102 24 34 135 61 14 310 55 23 277 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 3 13 0 2 4 6 0 2 5 1 0
Cap, veh/h 132 845 187 181 679 283 75 395 68 88 439 18
Arrive On Green 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 96 1351 299 170 1085 453 30 1600 277 71 1776 74 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 140 0 0 230 0 0 379 0 0 312 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1746 0 0 1708 0 0 1906 0 0 1921 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.10 0.17 0.15 0.27 0.04 0.15 0.07 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1165 0 0 1143 0 0 539 0 0 545 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1165 0 0 1143 0 0 945 0 0 942 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.73 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A C A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 140 230 379 312
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.8 20.0 18.9
Approach LOS A A C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.9 17.1 37.9 17.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 25.5 22.5 25.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 9.9 5.0 12.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 1.2 0.9 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.3
HCM 6th LOS B
1022 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background- No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background- No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 102 59 13 96 44 21 357 20 7 85 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 102 59 13 96 44 21 357 20 7 85 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1870 1900 1885 1796 1899 1930 1899 1976 1930 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 111 64 14 104 48 23 388 22 8 92 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 2 0 1 7 5 3 5 0 3 0
Cap, veh/h 146 162 82 84 226 97 96 1164 64 113 1090 91
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow, veh/h 332 861 434 71 1200 517 41 1757 96 64 1646 137 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 0 0 166 0 0 433 0 0 108 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1627 0 0 1788 0 0 1894 0 0 1847 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 390 0 0 408 0 0 1324 0 0 1293 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 765 0 0 830 0 0 1324 0 0 1293 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.1 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.6 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 240 166 433 108
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 20.2 0.6 3.4
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 40.5 14.5 40.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.9 22.9 23.9 22.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 3.1 6.6 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.3 0.6 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7
HCM 6th LOS A
1023 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 27 224 90 36 129
Future Vol, veh/h 61 27 224 90 36 129
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 66 29 243 98 39 140
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 510 292 0 0 341 0
Stage 1 292 - - - - -
Stage 2 218 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 509 741 - - 1218 -
Stage 1 746 - - - - -
Stage 2 808 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 491 741 - - 1218 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 491 - - - - -
Stage 1 746 - - - - -
Stage 2 780 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 13 0 1.8

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 548 1218 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.175 0.032 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -
1024 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 106 36 81 0 0 0 9 487 8 0 186 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 106 36 81 0 0 0 9 487 8 0 186 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 39 88 0 0 0 10 529 9 0 202 43
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 208 63 109 0 359 0 63 1260 21 0 1033 220
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 660 331 566 0 1870 0 10 1890 32 0 1550 330 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 242 0 0 0 0 0 548 0 0 0 0 245
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1557 0 0 0 1870 0 1933 0 0 0 0 1880 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.48 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 380 0 0 0 359 0 1345 0 0 0 0 1253 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 710 0 0 0 760 0 1345 0 0 0 0 1253 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 242 0 548 245
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.7 0.0 5.9 0.3
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.1 47.9 17.1 47.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.4 29.4 26.4 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.6 2.0 0.0 10.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 0.9 0.0 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.2
HCM 6th LOS A
1025 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 35 0 356 281 0
Future Vol, veh/h 9 35 0 356 281 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 10 38 0 387 305 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 692 305 305 0 - 0
Stage 1 305 - - - - -
Stage 2 387 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 397 731 1267 - - -
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 676 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 397 731 1267 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 397 - - - - -
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 676 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1267 - 624 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.077 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
1026 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 18 114 31 35 135 72 36 341 52 25 258 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 18 114 31 35 135 72 36 341 52 25 258 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1976 1961 1945 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 124 34 38 147 78 39 371 57 27 280 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 135 783 202 166 617 303 87 452 67 82 477 54
Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 123 1304 337 172 1027 506 93 1548 228 77 1633 184 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 178 0 0 263 0 0 467 0 0 340 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1763 0 0 1705 0 0 1869 0 0 1894 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.19 0.14 0.30 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1120 0 0 1086 0 0 606 0 0 613 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1120 0 0 1086 0 0 926 0 0 933 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A C A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 178 263 467 340
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.2 6.6 22.4 20.0
Approach LOS A A C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.5 22.5 42.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 30.5 27.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 11.8 6.5 17.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 1.4 1.1 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3
HCM 6th LOS B
1027 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 107 97 18 123 54 37 507 46 10 109 22 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 107 97 18 123 54 37 507 46 10 109 22 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1811 1885 1841 1976 1945 1976 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 116 105 20 134 59 40 551 50 11 118 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 6 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 98 161 130 77 226 93 103 1152 101 106 1018 198 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 182 860 697 89 1209 497 64 1676 147 67 1482 288 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 262 0 0 213 0 0 641 0 0 153 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 0 1796 0 0 1887 0 0 1837 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.2 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.16 0.40 0.09 0.28 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 389 0 0 396 0 0 1355 0 0 1322 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 735 0 0 756 0 0 1355 0 0 1322 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.2 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.9 0.0 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 262 213 641 153
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.9 22.9 1.1 3.6
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.2 48.8 16.2 48.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.9 30.9 25.9 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.2 3.8 8.8 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.6 0.8 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.2
HCM 6th LOS B
1028 of 1252
Appendix D Baseline
(Opening Year)
Conditions Plus Project
Synchro Worksheets
1029 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 54 242 51 22 235
Future Vol, veh/h 81 54 242 51 22 235
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 88 59 263 55 24 255
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 594 291 0 0 318 0
Stage 1 291 - - - - -
Stage 2 303 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 452 742 - - 1242 -
Stage 1 746 - - - - -
Stage 2 737 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 442 742 - - 1242 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 442 - - - - -
Stage 1 746 - - - - -
Stage 2 720 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 14.4 0 0.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 527 1242 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.278 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.4 8 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.1 -
1030 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 13 77 0 0 0 13 350 2 0 134 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 54 13 77 0 0 0 13 350 2 0 134 25
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 14 84 0 0 0 14 380 2 0 146 27
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 169 54 154 0 340 0 82 1236 6 0 1036 192
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 435 299 845 0 1870 0 23 1899 10 0 1592 294 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 157 0 0 0 0 0 396 0 0 0 0 173
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1579 0 0 0 1870 0 1931 0 0 0 0 1886 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 377 0 0 0 340 0 1325 0 0 0 0 1228 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 780 0 0 0 830 0 1325 0 0 0 0 1228 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 157 0 396 173
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.6 0.0 4.8 0.2
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.6 40.4 14.6 40.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.4 21.4 24.4 21.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 2.0 0.0 6.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 1031 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 12 0 389 331 0
Future Vol, veh/h 4 12 0 389 331 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 4 13 0 423 360 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 783 360 360 0 - 0
Stage 1 360 - - - - -
Stage 2 423 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 350 682 1210 - - -
Stage 1 696 - - - - -
Stage 2 650 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 350 682 1210 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 350 - - - - -
Stage 1 696 - - - - -
Stage 2 650 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1210 - 551 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.032 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1032 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 94 27 38 124 56 14 305 55 21 305 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 94 27 38 124 56 14 305 55 21 305 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1856 1707 1900 1870 1841 1884 1976 1945 1899 1961 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 102 29 41 135 61 15 332 60 23 332 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 3 13 0 2 4 6 0 2 5 1 0
Cap, veh/h 126 797 213 204 640 266 76 418 74 85 472 16
Arrive On Green 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 89 1304 348 208 1048 435 30 1599 282 59 1803 63 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 145 0 0 237 0 0 407 0 0 367 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1741 0 0 1691 0 0 1910 0 0 1926 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.10 0.20 0.17 0.26 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1136 0 0 1110 0 0 567 0 0 573 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1136 0 0 1110 0 0 946 0 0 947 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.73 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.7 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 145 237 407 367
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.7 5.2 19.7 18.9
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.1 17.9 37.1 17.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 25.5 22.5 25.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 11.4 5.3 12.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 1.4 0.9 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.6
HCM 6th LOS B
1033 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Background - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 106 59 13 97 44 21 357 21 7 85 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 106 59 13 97 44 21 357 21 7 85 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1870 1900 1885 1796 1899 1930 1899 1976 1930 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 115 64 14 105 48 23 388 23 8 92 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 2 0 1 7 5 3 5 0 3 0
Cap, veh/h 145 167 82 84 230 98 96 1156 66 112 1086 90
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow, veh/h 326 875 427 70 1204 514 41 1752 100 64 1646 137 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 244 0 0 167 0 0 434 0 0 108 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1628 0 0 1788 0 0 1893 0 0 1847 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.27 0.26 0.08 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 394 0 0 413 0 0 1318 0 0 1289 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 766 0 0 831 0 0 1318 0 0 1289 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.6 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 244 167 434 108
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 20.1 0.6 3.5
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.6 40.4 14.6 40.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.9 22.9 23.9 22.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 3.1 6.6 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.3 0.6 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7
HCM 6th LOS A
1034 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 61 27 260 90 45 166
Future Vol, veh/h 61 27 260 90 45 166
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 66 29 283 98 49 180
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 610 332 0 0 381 0
Stage 1 332 - - - - -
Stage 2 278 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 442 703 - - 1177 -
Stage 1 714 - - - - -
Stage 2 757 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 422 703 - - 1177 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 422 - - - - -
Stage 1 714 - - - - -
Stage 2 722 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 14.3 0 1.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 481 1177 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.199 0.042 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.3 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
1035 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 106 36 81 0 0 0 9 488 8 0 187 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 106 36 81 0 0 0 9 488 8 0 187 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 39 88 0 0 0 10 530 9 0 203 43
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 208 63 109 0 359 0 63 1260 21 0 1034 219
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 660 331 566 0 1870 0 10 1890 32 0 1551 329 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 242 0 0 0 0 0 549 0 0 0 0 246
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1557 0 0 0 1870 0 1933 0 0 0 0 1880 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.48 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 380 0 0 0 359 0 1345 0 0 0 0 1253 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 710 0 0 0 760 0 1345 0 0 0 0 1253 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 242 0 549 246
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.7 0.0 6.0 0.4
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.1 47.9 17.1 47.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.4 29.4 26.4 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.6 2.0 0.0 10.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 0.9 0.0 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.2
HCM 6th LOS A
1036 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 35 0 392 327 0
Future Vol, veh/h 9 35 0 392 327 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 10 38 0 426 355 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 781 355 355 0 - 0
Stage 1 355 - - - - -
Stage 2 426 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 351 684 1215 - - -
Stage 1 700 - - - - -
Stage 2 648 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 351 684 1215 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 351 - - - - -
Stage 1 700 - - - - -
Stage 2 648 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1215 - 573 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.083 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - -
1037 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 18 114 35 39 135 72 44 407 63 25 283 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 18 114 35 39 135 72 44 407 63 25 283 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1976 1961 1945 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 124 38 42 147 78 48 442 68 27 308 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 124 705 202 167 558 273 94 524 77 83 564 58
Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 114 1281 368 187 1015 496 99 1529 226 69 1649 169 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 182 0 0 267 0 0 558 0 0 368 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1763 0 0 1697 0 0 1855 0 0 1886 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.21 0.16 0.29 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.09
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1031 0 0 998 0 0 695 0 0 705 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1031 0 0 998 0 0 923 0 0 934 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A C A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 182 267 558 368
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.2 8.4 22.7 17.6
Approach LOS A A C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.3 25.7 39.3 25.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 30.5 27.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 12.0 7.1 20.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 1.5 1.1 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.6
HCM 6th LOS B
1038 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Background - Plus Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Background - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 110 97 19 128 56 37 507 47 10 109 22 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 110 97 19 128 56 37 507 47 10 109 22 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1811 1885 1841 1976 1945 1976 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 120 105 21 139 61 40 551 51 11 118 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 6 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 98 165 130 78 228 93 102 1147 103 105 1016 198 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 179 876 689 92 1209 496 64 1673 150 67 1482 288 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 266 0 0 221 0 0 642 0 0 153 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1744 0 0 1796 0 0 1886 0 0 1837 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.15 0.39 0.10 0.28 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 393 0 0 399 0 0 1352 0 0 1319 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 736 0 0 756 0 0 1352 0 0 1319 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.9 0.0 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 266 221 642 153
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.9 22.9 1.1 3.7
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.4 48.6 16.4 48.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.9 30.9 25.9 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.3 3.8 9.1 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.6 0.8 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.3
HCM 6th LOS B
1039 of 1252
Appendix E
Cumulative
Conditions Synchro
Worksheets
1040 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 82 30 221 53 6 243
Future Vol, veh/h 82 30 221 53 6 243
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 89 33 240 58 7 264
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 547 269 0 0 298 0
Stage 1 269 - - - - -
Stage 2 278 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 483 764 - - 1263 -
Stage 1 765 - - - - -
Stage 2 757 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 480 764 - - 1263 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 480 - - - - -
Stage 1 765 - - - - -
Stage 2 752 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 0 0.2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 533 1263 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.228 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.7 7.9 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.9 0 -
1041 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 14 102 0 0 0 17 572 3 0 220 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 14 102 0 0 0 17 572 3 0 220 33 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 15 111 0 0 0 18 622 3 0 239 36
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 176 43 156 0 340 0 80 1237 6 0 1072 161
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 474 236 856 0 1870 0 20 1901 9 0 1646 248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 0 0 0 0 0 643 0 0 0 0 275
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1565 0 0 0 1870 0 1930 0 0 0 0 1894 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 375 0 0 0 340 0 1323 0 0 0 0 1233 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 776 0 0 0 830 0 1323 0 0 0 0 1233 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 203 0 643 275
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 0.0 6.3 0.4
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.6 40.4 14.6 40.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.4 21.4 24.4 21.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 2.0 0.0 11.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 1.0 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.6
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. 1042 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 13 0 352 328 0
Future Vol, veh/h 4 13 0 352 328 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 0
Mvmt Flow 4 14 0 383 357 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 740 357 357 0 - 0
Stage 1 357 - - - - -
Stage 2 383 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.3 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 371 685 1213 - - -
Stage 1 699 - - - - -
Stage 2 679 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 371 685 1213 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 371 - - - - -
Stage 1 699 - - - - -
Stage 2 679 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1213 - 571 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.032 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1043 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 238 36 51 314 92 21 304 84 35 272 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 21 238 36 51 314 92 21 304 84 35 272 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1856 1707 1900 1870 1841 1884 1976 1945 1976 1930 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 259 39 55 341 100 23 330 91 38 296 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 3 13 0 2 4 6 0 2 0 3 0
Cap, veh/h 102 881 126 138 746 205 82 412 110 104 462 30 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 54 1497 214 111 1267 348 47 1449 386 113 1625 104 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 321 0 0 496 0 0 444 0 0 354 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1765 0 0 1727 0 0 1881 0 0 1841 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.20 0.11 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1108 0 0 1089 0 0 604 0 0 596 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1108 0 0 1089 0 0 933 0 0 908 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 321 496 444 354
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.1 7.8 19.0 17.7
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.9 19.1 35.9 19.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.5 25.5 22.5 25.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 11.1 10.6 14.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.5
HCM 6th LOS B
1044 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - No Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 258 120 27 243 90 43 585 41 14 139 14 Future Volume (veh/h) 122 258 120 27 243 90 43 585 41 14 139 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1870 1900 1885 1796 1899 1930 1899 1976 1930 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 280 130 29 264 98 47 636 45 15 151 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 2 0 1 7 5 3 5 0 3 0
Cap, veh/h 199 333 142 95 495 174 102 776 53 98 740 69
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.46 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 300 853 363 64 1268 446 69 1687 116 59 1607 151 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 543 0 0 391 0 0 728 0 0 181 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1515 0 0 1778 0 0 1872 0 0 1817 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 674 0 0 765 0 0 931 0 0 907 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 737 0 0 839 0 0 931 0 0 907 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.5 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 543 391 728 181
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.9 4.3 7.1 9.4
Approach LOS C A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.6 29.4 25.6 29.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.9 22.9 23.9 22.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.5 5.1 6.6 9.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.6 1.7 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8
HCM 6th LOS B
1045 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.5
Movement NWL NWR NET NER SWL SWT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 28 242 95 38 140
Future Vol, veh/h 63 28 242 95 38 140
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 1 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 68 30 263 103 41 152
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 549 315 0 0 366 0
Stage 1 315 - - - - -
Stage 2 234 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.62 6.32 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.62 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.62 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 482 719 - - 1193 -
Stage 1 727 - - - - -
Stage 2 794 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 464 719 - - 1193 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 464 - - - - -
Stage 1 727 - - - - -
Stage 2 764 - - - - -
Approach NW NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 13.5 0 1.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NET NERNWLn1 SWL SWT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 521 1193 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.19 0.035 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.5 8.1 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
1046 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: E 4th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 134 39 102 0 0 0 11 713 10 0 272 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 134 39 102 0 0 0 11 713 10 0 272 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 1945 1945 1939 1939 1939 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 42 111 0 0 0 12 775 11 0 296 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 242 64 132 0 431 0 62 1191 17 0 1002 183
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 693 279 574 0 1870 0 9 1897 27 0 1596 291 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 299 0 0 0 0 0 798 0 0 0 0 350
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1546 0 0 0 1870 0 1933 0 0 0 0 1887 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.49 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 438 0 0 0 431 0 1270 0 0 0 0 1185 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 707 0 0 0 760 0 1270 0 0 0 0 1185 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 299 0 798 350
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.5 0.0 10.0 0.6
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.6 45.4 19.6 45.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.4 29.4 26.4 29.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 2.0 0.0 18.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 1.4 0.0 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7
HCM 6th LOS B
1047 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
9: E 5th Ave & Ellsworth Ave 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement SEL SER NEL NET SWT SWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 38 0 385 304 0
Future Vol, veh/h 10 38 0 385 304 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 11 41 0 418 330 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 748 330 330 0 - 0
Stage 1 330 - - - - -
Stage 2 418 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.6 6.31 4.1 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.6 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.6 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.309 2.2 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 367 707 1241 - - -
Stage 1 720 - - - - -
Stage 2 653 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 367 707 1241 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 367 - - - - -
Stage 1 720 - - - - -
Stage 2 653 - - - - -
Approach SE NE SW
HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET SELn1 SWT SWR
Capacity (veh/h) 1241 - 593 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.088 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - -
1048 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
10: E 5th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 216 44 50 255 103 52 369 75 36 279 43 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 216 44 50 255 103 52 369 75 36 279 43 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1900 1976 1961 1945 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 235 48 54 277 112 57 401 82 39 303 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 107 792 153 135 643 242 104 479 93 96 502 74 Arrive On Green 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 84 1419 274 130 1152 434 129 1433 280 104 1503 221 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 311 0 0 443 0 0 540 0 0 389 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 0 0 1715 0 0 1842 0 0 1828 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.25 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1052 0 0 1019 0 0 677 0 0 672 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1052 0 0 1019 0 0 914 0 0 908 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A C A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 311 443 540 389
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.2 9.8 22.7 18.3
Approach LOS A A C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.8 25.2 39.8 25.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.5 30.5 27.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 13.2 11.4 19.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.1
HCM 6th LOS B
1049 of 1252
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: E 4th Ave & S B St 10/07/2022
Scenario 1 PM Cumulative - No Project 1:37 pm 09/12/2022 PM Cumulative - No Project Synchro 11 Report

Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 202 162 30 233 90 62 743 77 17 160 37 Future Volume (veh/h) 63 202 162 30 233 90 62 743 77 17 160 37 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1811 1885 1841 1976 1945 1976 1976 1976 1976 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 220 176 33 253 98 67 808 84 18 174 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 6 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 118 270 198 86 376 138 108 914 93 96 803 175 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 178 879 646 83 1225 448 87 1614 163 65 1418 309 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 464 0 0 384 0 0 959 0 0 232 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1703 0 0 1756 0 0 1864 0 0 1791 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.6 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.15 0.38 0.09 0.26 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 587 0 0 599 0 0 1115 0 0 1075 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 733 0 0 753 0 0 1115 0 0 1075 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.1 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A B A A A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 464 384 959 232
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.8 10.9 6.4 7.4
Approach LOS C B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.1 40.9 24.1 40.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.9 30.9 25.9 30.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.6 5.9 11.3 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 1.0 1.5 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.5
HCM 6th LOS B
1050 of 1252
Appendix F
Cumulative Plus
Project Synchro
Worksheets
1051 of 1252
HCM 6th TWSC
5: E 5th Ave & Laurel Ave 10/10/2022
Scenario 2 AM Cumulative - Plus Project 11:29 am 09/15/2022 AM Cumulative - Plus Project Synchro 11 Report