San Ramon City Council
December 11, 2023

2.1.h
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: E. Exhibit 3: Iron Horse Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (2023- City of San Ramon–Iron Horse Village Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures FirstCarbon Solutions 12 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2491/24910038/MMRP/24910038 Iron Horse Village Project MMRP_back from Pubs.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the wet
season.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
See MM HYD-1a under VII. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils See MM HYD-1b under VII. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils XIII. Noise
MM NOI-1a: All construction contractors shall adhere to the following noise attenuation requirements:
• Construction activities shall be restricted from occurring Monday through Friday between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. or on Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. or anytime on federal holidays. The City of San Ramon shall have the discretion to permit
construction activities to occur outside of allowable hours if compelling circumstances warrant such an exception (e.g., weather conditions necessary to pour concrete).
• Construction activities shall not exceed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noise standards of 90
decibel (dB) over 8 continuous hours or 105 dB over 1
continuous hour at any nearby office or residential use. • All construction equipment shall use noise reduction
features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer.

The analysis summarized above satisfies the requirements of MM NOI-2. No further analysis or mitigation is required.

Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection
During construction City of San Ramon
MM NOI-1b: An acoustical analysis shall be prepared for any development that includes residential uses within the Specific Plan area. The acoustical analysis shall analyze potential exterior noise impacts to any ground level yards or patios Approval of analysis Prior to issuance of
building permits for
residential uses within the
project site.

City of San Ramon

2.1.h
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: E. Exhibit 3: Iron Horse Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (2023- City of San Ramon–Iron Horse Village Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures FirstCarbon Solutions 13 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2491/24910038/MMRP/24910038 Iron Horse Village Project MMRP_back from Pubs.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
(upper level balconies shall be exempt from exterior noise standards) in order to determine compliance with the City’s 60-dBA CNEL exterior noise standard. The acoustical analysis shall also analyze potential interior noise impacts to any habitable rooms in order to determine compliance with the City’s 45-dBA CNEL interior noise standard. If the analysis determines an exceedance of noise standards will occur, then the analysis shall develop mitigation to reduce noise levels to within the standards.

The noise analysis for the proposed project by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) contained within the Addendum satisfies the requirements of MM NOI-1b. No further analysis or mitigation is required.

Conditions of Approval
In compliance with the requirements of MM NOI-1b of the previously certified EIR, the following condition of approval (COA) shall be required to ensure that traffic noise impacts to the proposed project would be reduced to less than
significant.

COA NOI-1: a. All proposed residential private outdoor yard spaces that are located within 340 feet of Crow Canyon Road, or within 240 feet of Alcosta Boulevard, and that have a direct line of sight to either roadway (i.e., not shielded by an intervening structure) would be required to include a
minimum 6-foot high solid fence that completely blocks the line of sight from the yard to either roadway. The fence shall be constructed to have a minimum surface weight of 4 pounds per square foot and shall have no vertical or horizontal gaps.

The Applicant may implement alternative sound attenuation features that a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical professional demonstrates to the City’s reasonable satisfaction

2.1.h
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: E. Exhibit 3: Iron Horse Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (2023- City of San Ramon–Iron Horse Village Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures FirstCarbon Solutions 14 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2491/24910038/MMRP/24910038 Iron Horse Village Project MMRP_back from Pubs.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
will reduce outdoor noise levels to meet the conditionally applicable outdoor noise standard.
b. All wall assemblies of all façades with a direct line of sight of and located within 120 feet of the edge of the nearest travel lane of Crow Canyon Road, or within 60 feet of the edge of the nearest travel lane of Alcosta Boulevard shall be required to be constructed to meet a minimum sound transmission class
(STC) rating of 35. All windows and doors in these impacted façades must also have a minimum STC rating of 35. These wall assembly STC rating requirements shall be clearly marked on the final construction documents. The verification of the STC rating of the final design of these wall assemblies shall be verified by a qualified acoustical professional prior to issuance of building permits. The Applicant may implement alternative sound attenuation features that a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical professional demonstrates to the City’s reasonable satisfaction will reduce indoor noise levels to meet the applicable interior 45 dBA CNEL noise standard.

MM NOI-2a: A vibration analysis shall be prepared for any development that would include construction activities
located within 130 feet of an off-site sensitive receptor. The vibration analysis shall utilize industry-accepted
methodologies that include the recommended vibration
assessment procedure and thresholds provided by public
agencies such as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the Federal Highway Administration (FTA).

The analysis contained in the Addendum satisfies the
requirements of MM NOI-2a. No further analysis or mitigation is required.

Approval of analysis Prior to issuance of
building permits for any
use that would include
construction activities
located within 130 feet of
an off-site sensitive
receptor
City of San Ramon

2.1.h
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: E. Exhibit 3: Iron Horse Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (2023- City of San Ramon–Iron Horse Village Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures FirstCarbon Solutions 15 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2491/24910038/MMRP/24910038 Iron Horse Village Project MMRP_back from Pubs.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
MM NOI-2b: A vibration analysis shall be prepared for any residential development that will be located within 50 feet of any private loading area or truck route. The vibration analysis shall utilize industry-accepted methodologies that include the recommended vibration assessment procedure and thresholds provided by public agencies such as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the Federal Highway
Administration (FTA).

The analysis contained in the Addendum above satisfies the requirements of MM NOI-2b. No further analysis or mitigation is required.

Approval of analysis Prior to issuance of
building permits for any
residential development
that will be located within
50 feet of any private
loading area or truck
route
City of San Ramon
XVII. Transportation
Conditions of Approval
The following COA shall be required to ensure that impacts to transportation from the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant.

COA TRANS-1: Prior to Site Development Permit issuance, the Applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent property owner, United States Postal Service (USPS), on a Site Plan to
reconfigure the USPS parking lot for adequate site circulation and obtain and forward to USPS comments from the
Community Development Director and the City Traffic
Engineer on recommended adjustments to the Site Plan. The Applicant shall request that USPS include a drive-aisle and a 5- foot. wide landscape area (Zoning Ordinance Section D3- 21(A)(7)) adjacent to the screen wall between the project site and the adjacent USPS parking aisles with no dead-end
parking aisle designs.

Approval of site plan Prior to Site Development
Permit issuance.

City of San Ramon

2.1.h
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: E. Exhibit 3: Iron Horse Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (2023- City of San Ramon–Iron Horse Village Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures FirstCarbon Solutions 16 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2491/24910038/MMRP/24910038 Iron Horse Village Project MMRP_back from Pubs.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems
MM US-4a: Prior to the issuance of demolition and
construction permits, project applicants within the Specific Plan area shall submit a recycling plan to the City of San Ramon identifying the procedures by which construction and demolition would be salvaged and recycled to the maximum extent feasible. The plan shall include proof that a
construction and demolition debris recycler is under contract to the applicant to perform this work.

Approval of plan; Notes on
construction plans
Prior to the issuance of
demolition and
construction permits
City of San Ramon
MM US-4b: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits,
project applicants within the Specific Plan area shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan to the City of San Ramon identifying practices they and their tenants would implement during project operations that demonstrate at least 50 percent diversion.

Operation recycling and waste reduction practices shall include but not be limited to:
• Compliance with City of San Ramon’s 50 percent waste
diversion ordinance.
• Installation of common recycling facilities in all residential uses. These facilities shall be equipped to accept aluminum, cardboard, glass, mixed paper, and plastic materials and contain signage clearly identifying accepted materials. • Periodic notification of residents and commercial tenants about the location of recycling facilities and accepted materials.
• Installation of recyclable materials receptacles in public places (along streets in public parks, plazas, and outside of the Transit Center, etc.). Recycling receptacles shall be of high-quality design and shall display signage clearly
identifying accepted materials.

Approval of plan; Notes on
construction plans
Prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits
City of San Ramon

2.1.h
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: E. Exhibit 3: Iron Horse Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (2023- City of San Ramon–Iron Horse Village Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures FirstCarbon Solutions 17 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2491/24910038/MMRP/24910038 Iron Horse Village Project MMRP_back from Pubs.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
• Common commercial and residential disposal areas shall be designed with sufficient space to accommodate separate
containers for solid waste, recyclables, organics, and—for restaurants—tallow, subject to approval of the franchise waste provider and City of San Ramon. Plans should include adequate and safe access for solid waste and recycling
vehicles to access and collect materials.

2.1.h
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: E. Exhibit 3: Iron Horse Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (2023-

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2.1.h
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: E. Exhibit 3: Iron Horse Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project Very-Low Income Low Income Moderate Income
Above Moderate
Income Totals Notes
2023-2031 RHNA 1,497 862 767 1,985 5,111Year Reported Progress for Projection Period (7/1/2022 to 1/31/2031)2022 - ADUs Issued a Building Permit -6 6 6 ADUs issued a building permit between 7/1/2022 to 12/31/2022 (part of projection period) 2023 (TBD by April 2024) TBD (April 2024) TBD (April 2024) TBD (April 2024) TBD (April 2024)Project Name (APN) Projects Approved/Entitled, anticipated to pull building permits or obtain Cert. of Occupancy for Projection Period (7/1/2022 to 1/31/2031) The Promenade at the Preserve (Twin Oaks) (208880001) -162 162 Cert. of Occupancy anticipated in Projection PeriodAspen Wood Senior Apts. (210520031) -26 -96 -1 123 BP issued 7/14/2022 and Cert. of Occupancy anticipated in Projection PeriodROEM Apts. (208271041) -13 -7 -149 169Chang Residential (208240039) -2 -4 -12 -43 61 Includes 43 SF and 18 ADUsTTLC Townhomes (208260054) -3 -2 -4 -48 57Windflower Fields (208250091) -6 -6 -4 -47 63 Includes 47 SF and 16 ADUsDeer Creek South (222270058) -185 185 Cert. of Occupancy anticipated in Projection Period City Village (Summerhill) (213133048) -4 -6 -10 -384 404City Walk Master Plan - BR 1A:1 (Related Apts.) (21312036) -29 -28 -324 3812481 Deerwood - Trumark Townhomes (208640003) -3 -2 -4 -52 61Marketplace (213701002) -44 44 Includes 40 SF and 4 ADUs47 Paddock Ln. - Bierwith Lot Split (209750012) -1 1 Remaining RHNA to Date
718 1,411 541 724 3,394
Project Name (APN) Proposed Project RHNAIron Horse Village (213020046 and 213020037) -1 -2 -2 -112 -117 Remaining RHNA with Proposed Development
716 1,410 539 612 3,277
Remaining RHNA (2023-2031)
Exhibit 4 (Table 1 of 3)
EXHIBIT 4

2.1.i
Packet Pg. 409
Attachment: E. Exhibit 4: No Net Loss Calculation Tables (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP Very-Low
Income Low Income Moderate Income
Above Moderate
Income Totals Notes
Total Site Capacity 1,001 1,779 874 4,951 8,605
Capacity from ADUs 21 21 21 7 70
Project Name (APN) Sites Inventory RHNA from Approved/Entitled or Permitted Project The Promenade at the Preserve (Twin Oaks) (208880001) -162 162Aspen Wood Senior Apts. (210520031) -26 -96 -1 123ROEM Apts. (208271041) -13 -7 -149 169Chang Residential (208240039) -2 -4 -12 -43 61 Includes 43 SF and 18 ADUsTTLC Townhomes (208260054) -3 -2 -4 -48 57Windflower Fields (208250091) -6 -6 -4 -47 63 Includes 47 SF and 16 ADUsDeer Creek South (222270058) -185 185 City Village (Summerhill) (213133048) -4 -6 -10 -384 404City Walk Master Plan - BR 1A:1 (Related Apts.) (21312036) -29 -29 -323 3812481 Deerwood - Trumark Townhomes (208640003) -3 -2 -4 -52 61Marketplace (213701002) -44 44 Includes 40 SF and 4 ADUs Remaining Sites Inventory Capacity To Date
877 1,714 669 3,705 6,965
Project Name (APN) Sites Inventory Capacity from Proposed Development Iron Horse Village (213020046 and 213020037) -8 -8 -16 -133 165 Remaining Sites Inventory Capacity with Proposed Development 869 1,706 653 3,572 6,800
Remaining Capacity (2023-2031)
Exhibit 4 (Table 2 of 3)

2.1.i
Packet Pg. 410
Attachment: E. Exhibit 4: No Net Loss Calculation Tables (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP Very-Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income Totals
Remaining Capacity 869 1,706 653 3,572 6,800
Remaining RHNA 716 1,410 539 612 3,277
No Net Loss Calculation 153 296 114 2,960 3,523
No Net Loss Calculation (2023-2031)
Exhibit 4 (Table 3 of 3)

2.1.i
Packet Pg. 411
Attachment: E. Exhibit 4: No Net Loss Calculation Tables (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP Final Focused Traffic Impact Study
Iron Horse Village
August 23, 2023
San Ramon, California

RECEIVED
AUG 23 2023

CITY OF SAN RAMON

PLANNING SERVICES

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | i
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 3

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

1.1 Project Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Study Intersections & Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Site Access Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes And Lane Configurations .............................................................................. 8

3.0 Site Access Alternatives............................................................................................................................10

3.1 Site Access Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................................10

3.2 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................11

3.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ....................................................................................................................13

3.4 Intersection Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................................................................16

3.5 Warrant Analysis For Project Driveway ..........................................................................................................................17

3.6 Site Access Alternative Analysis .......................................................................................................................................19

4.0 Vehicle miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis ..................................................................................................31

4.1 Screening Criteria and methodology .............................................................................................................................32

4.2 VMT Forecasting and analysis ...........................................................................................................................................32 Tables
Table 1: Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Table 2: Intersection Level Of Service ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Table 3: Summary of Warrant Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 Table 4: Land Use Changes for Base Year……………………………………………………………………………………………………25 Table 5: Home Based VMT per Capita Comparison…………………………………………………………………………………….25 Figures

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | ii
Figure 1: Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Existing Conditions Lane Geometry, Traffic Controls and Traffic Counts .................................................... 9 Figure 4: Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 5: Project Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7 Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8 Alternative 3a .................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 9 Alternative 3b .................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 10 Alternative 3c .................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 11 Alternative 4a .................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 12 Alternative 4b ................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendices
Appendix A – Existing Traffic Counts
Appendix B – Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service Appendix C – Existing plus Project Conditions Level of Service Alternative 1 Appendix D – Existing plus Project Conditions Level of Service Alternative 2 Appendix E – Existing plus Project Conditions Level of Service Alternative 3

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a focused Traffic Study for the proposed Iron Horse Village, a 117 residential development located southeast of the intersection of Crow Canyon Road and Iron Horse Trail crossing in San Ramon.

There are 31 planned single family units and 86 planned condominium units on a site that was previously occupied with offices.

This study specifically investigates four site access alternatives as well as conducts a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis.

Site Access Alternatives
The only access point to the project site is located at an uncontrolled driveway on Crow Canyon Road.

There is an existing median break that allow for left turns exiting the project driveway. There is also a left turn pocket for a development on the north side of Crow Canyon Road. However, westbound left turns are prohibited from entering the project driveway. Four alternatives were evaluated to determine the recommended access point configuration.

Alternative 1 maintains the existing roadway configuration. This alternative is not recommended due to the City’s Policy on prioritizing arterial traffic over driveway access, as well as improving safety.

Alternative 2 signalizes the project driveway, thus replacing the existing signalized trail crossing just west of the driveway. This alternative is not recommended due to signal warrants not met, proximity to adjacent signals less than 1,000 feet, as well as future plans for a trail overcrossing, thus eliminating the need for a signal.

Alternative 3 restricts movements from the driveways to right turns in and out only. This would also require a modification of the median to provide an eastbound u-turn lane. This can either be provided uncontrolled mid-block (Alternative 3a) or at the signalized intersection at Alcosta Boulevard with a u-turn signal phase (Alternative 3b). The alternative with the mid-block u-turn lane is the recommended alternative to minimize disruptions to the signal operations at Alcosta Boulevard. Alternative 3c is similar to 3a with an uncontrolled mid-block median break, however, it eliminates the eastbound left turn at the existing median break for the property to the north, and it maintains a break in the median to allow left turn access for emergency vehicles only. Alternative 3c is the recommended alternative.

Alternative 4 restricts left turns out of the project driveway, but allow left turns into the driveway. This scenario, similar to alternative 3, would also require an eastbound u-turn lane.

Vehicles Miles Traveled
TJKM obtained the CCTA travel demand model and calculated trip lengths for two different types of trips; work trips and residential trips. To calculate total VMT, TJKM used the project trip generation table and multiplied the total trips from the office land use and the residential land use for comparison purposes.

The Iron Horse Village project generates fewer total VMT than the existing office, and thus TJKM finds that this project has an insignificant impact on VMT.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a focused Traffic Study for the proposed Iron Horse Village, a 117 residential development located southeast of the intersection of Crow Canyon Road and Iron Horse Trail crossing in San Ramon.

There are 31 planned single family units and 86 planned condominium units on a site that is currently occupied with 212,224 square feet of office.

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to specifically investigate four site access alternatives on Crow Canyon Road.

Additionally, a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis is conducted to determine compliance with City policy.

1.2 STUDY INTERSECTIONS & SCENARIOS
TJKM evaluated traffic conditions at three study intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for a typical weekday. The study intersections were selected in consultation with the City of San Ramon staff.

The peak periods were between 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. The study intersections and associated traffic controls are as follows:

1. Crow Canyon Road / Camino Ramon (Signalized)

2. Crow Canyon Road / Project Driveway (Two-Way Stop)

3. Crow Canyon Road / Alcosta Blvd (Signalized)
Figure 1 illustrates the study intersections and the vicinity map of the proposed project. Figure 2 shows the proposed project site plan.

The study intersections were analyzed with the existing conditions traffic scenario and the existing plus project traffic scenario.

1.3 SITE ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
This study evaluates four site access alternatives.
• Alternative 1: Maintain Existing Access – This alternative evaluates the study intersections with the existing driveway on the south side of Crow Canyon Road, just east of an existing signalized pedestrian crossing of the Iron Horse Trail. There is currently a median break that allows left turn access out of the driveway. Additionally, there is an eastbound left turn pocket for a driveway on the north side of Crow Canyon Road. Westbound left turns are prohibited into the project driveway.
• Alternative 2: Signalized Intersection – This alternative evaluates a signalized intersection that encompasses the project driveway, the driveway on the north side and the Iron Horse Trail crossing just to the west of the driveways. This signalized intersection would replace the existing traffic signal for the trail crossing of Crow Canyon Road.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 5
• Alternative 3: Right In, Right Out Only – This alternative evaluates limiting the project driveway to right turns in and right turns out only. To accommodate westbound project traffic, a u-turn lane within the existing median is needed. Alternative 3a (shown in Figure 8) illustrates the u-turn lane within the median mid-block with an uncontrolled turn. Alternative 3b (shown in Figure 9) illustrates the u-turn lane at the signalized intersection of Crow Canyon Road at Alcosta Boulevard which includes modifying the traffic signal to provide a u-turn phase. Alternative 3c (shown in Figure 10) illustrates the uncontrolled mid-block median break for eastbound u-turning traffic.

Additionally, it illustrates that the existing median break would remain flush with the roadway surface to allow smooth access for emergency vehicles.
• Alternative 4: Left turns in, Right turns Out – This alternative evaluates providing for left turns into the driveways and restricting left turns out of the driveways. This includes installing an sdiverter to channel the eastbound and westbound left turns into the driveway while restricting the northbound and southbound left turns out of the driveway. This also includes modifying the median to accommodate a 150 foot westbound left turn pocket. Alternative 4a (shown in Figure 10) illustrates the u-turn lane within the median mid-block with an uncontrolled turn. Alternative 4b (shown in Figure 11) illustrates the u-turn lane at the signalized intersection of Crow Canyon Road at Alcosta Boulevard which includes modifying the traffic signal to provide a u-turn phase.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Driveway
LEGEND
161-088 | 10/2022 N
TJKM
Iron Horse Village
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Alcosta Blvd
Camino Ramon Iron Horse Trail Crow Canyon Rd Norris Canyon Rd Fostoria Way
El Capitan
Dr
1 2
3 680

2.1.j
Pkt P418 Att
h
t
F
T
ffi
St
d
d
t
d A
t 23
2023 (2023
124
I
H
Vill
D
P
j
t (DP 2023
0001) Cit
C
il C
ll f
R
i

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 8

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity. In addition, existing traffic volumes and operations are presented for the study intersections.

2.1 EXISTING FACILITIES
Local access to the proposed project is at an existing driveway on the south side of Crow Canyon Road, just east of the signalized pedestrian crossing of the Iron Horse Trail. There is a median break at the project driveway that also serves an existing development on the north side of Crow Canyon Road.

Figure 1 provides a map of the project site in relation to the vicinity.

Crow Canyon Road is primarily an east/west roadway and is classified as an arterial street per the City of San Ramon Circulation Element. Within the study area, Crow Canyon Road is an 8 lane divided roadway with sidewalks on both sides. Crow Canyon Road connects the eastern portion of the City to I-680, and traverses through residential, commercial and office land uses. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (mph).

Alcosta Boulevard is a divided four-lane arterial street with Class II bike lanes that border the east side of the project. The project site experiences a grade differential from the roadway along this border where the road is 16 to 10 feet higher in elevation. Surrounding land uses are a mix of office and residential with some commercial. The posted speed limit in the study area is 30 mph.

Iron Horse Trail is a Class I paved multi-use trail that borders the western edge of the project site. This trail consists of 10 feet of pavement and gravel shoulders in some areas. The trail is approximately 32 miles in length from the cities of Pleasanton to Concord. It passes through many residential, commercial and business districts as well as through the Pleasanton/Dublin BART station.

2.2 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS The existing operations of the study intersections were evaluated for the highest one-hour volumes during weekday morning and evening peak periods. Turning movement counts for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians were conducted on Tuesday Oct 4, 2022 during the a.m. peak period (7:00-9:00 a.m.) and p.m. peak period (4:00-6:00 p.m.) at the study intersections. At this time, the office building was not at fully capacity.

Appendix A includes all data sheets for the collected vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian counts. Figure 3 illustrates the existing lane geometry, traffic controls and peak hour traffic counts at the study intersections.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review














 
 















 
 

Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Figure 3: Existing Lane Geometry, Traffic Controls, and Peak Hour Volumes Existing Turning Movement Counts
161-088 | 10/2022
N
TJKM
Project Site
X Study Intersection
LEGEND
Iron Horse Village
Project Driveway
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes


 1 














 2 3







 1 














 2 3





93 (135)
864 (720)
465 (220)
226 (256)
826 (723)
143 (142)
5 (0)
1212 (1147)
1000 (829)
259 (202)
90 (308)
108 (222)
39 (115)
51 (143)
86 (195)
115 (394)
20(3)
826(1415)
16 (5)
5 (9)
0 (4)
3 (6)
0 (1)
525 (1123)
300 (305)
218 (318)
243 (365)
Pk
Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 10

3.0 SITE ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
The impact of four different site access alternatives are evaluated. First, the method used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the project is described. Then, the results of the level of service calculations for Existing and Existing plus project are presented for each of the alternatives to determine operational impact. It’s important to note that the level of service includes some trips from the office use since the office use is partially occupied. Lastly, a traffic signal warrant analysis is conducted to determine the need for a traffic signal at the project driveway

3.1 SITE ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
• Alternative 1: Maintain Existing Access – This alternative evaluates the study intersections with the existing driveway on the south side of Crow Canyon Road, just east of an existing signalized pedestrian crossing of the Iron Horse Trail. There is currently a median break that allows left turn access out of the driveway. Additionally, there is an eastbound left turn pocket for a driveway on the north side of Crow Canyon Road. Westbound left turns are prohibited into the project driveway.
• Alternative 2: Signalized Intersection – This alternative evaluates a signalized intersection that encompasses the project driveway, the driveway on the north side and the Iron Horse Trail crossing just to the west of the driveways. This signalized intersection would replace the existing traffic signal for the trail crossing of Crow Canyon Road. • Alternative 3: Right In, Right Out Only – This alternative evaluates limiting the project driveway to right turns in and right turns out only. To accommodate westbound project traffic, a u-turn lane within the existing median is needed. Alternative 3a illustrates the u-turn lane within the median mid-block with an uncontrolled turn. Alternative 3b illustrates the u-turn lane at the signalized intersection of Crow Canyon Road at Alcosta Boulevard which includes modifying the traffic signal to provide a u-turn phase. Alternative 3c is similar to Alternative 3a with an uncontrolled mid-block median break, however, it eliminates the eastbound left turn lane at the existing median break for the property to the north. Also, this alternative maintains a break in the median to allow a smooth left turn access for emergency vehicles only. • Alternative 4: Left In, Right Out – This alternative evaluates providing for left turns into the driveways and restricting left turns out of the driveways. This includes installing an s-diverter to channel the eastbound and westbound left turns into the driveway while restricting the northbound and southbound left turns out of the driveway. This also includes modifying the median to accommodate a 150 foot westbound left turn pocket. Alternative 4a illustrates the uturn lane within the median mid-block with an uncontrolled turn. Alternative 4b illustrates the u-turn lane at the signalized intersection of Crow Canyon Road at Alcosta Boulevard which includes modifying the traffic signal to provide a u-turn phase.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 11

3.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation (11th Edition).

Table 1 shows the trip generation for the proposed project. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 73 weekday a.m. peak hour trips (19 inbound trips, 54 outbound trips), and 97 weekday p.m. peak hour trips (61 inbound trips, 36 outbound trips).

This table also shows the trip generation rates of the existing office space that is currently developed on the project site. Overall, the proposed residential project will reduce the number of daily and peak hour trips. For this reason, a Level of Service analysis is not needed to provide compliance with the City’s Level of Service Policy.

For the purposes of the site access analysis, the new residential project trips are utilized.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 12
Table 1: Project Trip Generation
Source - Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition KSF - Thousand Square Feet
DU – Dwelling Unit
Rate Trips Rate In % Out % In Out Total Rate In % Out % In Out Total MultiFamily Housing (220) 31 du 6.74 209 0.40 24 76 3 9 12 0.51 63 37 10 6 16 Single Family Housing (210) 86 du 9.43 811 0.70 26 74 16 45 60 0.94 63 37 51 30 81 New Residential Trips 1,020 19 54 73 61 36 97
Existing General Office (710) 212 ksf 10.84 2300 1.52 88 12 284 39 323 1.44 17 83 52 254 306 Existing Office Trips 2,300 284 39 323 52 254 306
Net New Trips -1,280 -265 15 -250 9 -218 -209
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023- Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 13

3.3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Trip distribution is a process that determines in what proportion vehicles would be expected to travel between the project site and various destinations outside the project study area and also determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the calculated trip distribution. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed project were developed based on existing travel patterns, knowledge of the study area, and consultation with City staff.

Figure 4 illustrates the trip distribution percentages developed for project trips. Figure 5 illustrates the trip assignment project volumes developed for the proposed project under the four site access alternatives. The assigned project trips were then added to existing traffic volumes to generate Existing plus Project for each of the four alternatives.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Project Site
X Study Intersection
Project Driveway
LEGEND
161-088 | 10/2022
N
TJKM
Figure 4: Trip Distribution
Iron Horse Village
XX% Trip Distribution
10%
75%
10%
5%
Alcosta Blvd
Camino Ramon
Iron Horse Trail
Crow Canyon Rd
Norris Canyon Rd
Fostoria Way
El Capitan Dr
680
1 2
3 2.1.j
Pkt P426 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review  


















 


















Figure 5a: Project Trip Assignment
Alternative 1: Existing Geometry
Alternative 2: Traffic Signal at Project Driveway
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
161-088 | 10/2022
TJKM
LEGEND
Iron Horse Village
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
 


1 


 



 
 


2 3 

 


1 


 



 
 


2 3 

14 (46)
5 (3)
3 (2)
41 (27)
5 (4)
3 (9) 2 (6)
19 (61)
2 (6)
1 (3)
46 (31)
8 (5)
14 (46)
5 (3)
3 (2)
41 (27)
5 (4) 2 (6) 3 (9)
16 (52)
2 (6)
1 (3)
46 (31)
8 (5)

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review  


















Figure 5b: Project Trip Assignment
Alternative 3: Right In, Right Out at Project Driveway
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
161-088 | 10/2022
TJKM
LEGEND
Iron Horse Village
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
 


1 


 



 
 


2 3 

14 (46)
46 (31)
5 (3)
3 (2)
41 (27)
5 (4)
3 (9) 2 (6)
19 (61)
2 (6)
1 (3)
54 (36)
 


















Alternative 4: Left Turns In, Right Turns Out at Project Driveway  


1 


 



 
 


2 3 

14 (46)
46 (31)
5 (3)
3 (2)
41 (27)
5 (4) 2 (6)
19 (61)
2 (6)
1 (3)
54 (36)
3 (9)
*These trips are either located mid-block for Alternative 3a and 4a or at the signalized intersection at Alcosta for Alternative 3b and 4b *
*

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 16

3.4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and passengers. The LOS generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety. The operational LOS are given letter designations from A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions (free-flow) and F the worst (severely congested flow with high delays).

Intersection levels of service were calculated with the addition of new traffic projected to be added by the proposed project to existing volumes to evaluate operating conditions at the study intersections and identify potential impacts to the roadway system. The results of the intersection level of service analysis for Existing plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 2. The results for Existing Conditions are included for comparison purposes. Appendix B- E contains the Level of Service calculations.

Delay was not calculated as the High Capacity Manual methodologies do not provide delay with a twoway stop controlled intersection crossing more than two lanes. Crow Canyon Road is a four-lane roadway.

The impact to the study intersections based on a delay analysis is extremely marginal. With Alternative 2, which is a signalized intersection at the project driveway, the delay at Crow Canyon Road at Camino Road is slightly reduced due to eliminating a few u-turn movements with direct access at the project driveway for westbound left turns. With Alternative 3 which is a right in and right out at the project driveway, at the intersection of Crow Canyon Road at Alcosta, the delay is increased by 1.7 seconds in the AM and 1.1 seconds in the PM due to an increase in u-turn movements for westbound traffic.

Table 2: Intersection Level Of Service
Notes:

1. AM – morning peak hour, PM – evening peak hour

2. Delay – Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. Delay analysis not available for stop controlled intersections crossing more than two lanes.

3. LOS – Level of Service.

4. Change – change between existing delay and alternative delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.

Peak
Hour¹
Delay LOS Delay LOS Change Delay LOS Change Delay LOS Change AM 27.3 C 27.8 C 0.5 27.1 C -0.2 27.8 C 0.5
PM 39.3 D 39.3 D 0 39.1 D -0.2 39.3 D 0
AM 26.4 C
PM 32.4 C
AM 15.7 B 15.7 B 0 15.7 B 0 17.4 B 1.7
PM 17.4 B 17.4 B 0 17.4 B 0 18.5 B 1.1
Ex+Project Alt 2 Ex+Project Alt 3
Crow Canyon Road at
Project Driveway
Crow Canyon Road at
Alcosta Blvd
Crow Canyon Road at
Camino Ramon
Study Intersections Existing Ex+Project Alt 1

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 17

3.5 WARRANT ANALYSIS FOR PROJECT DRIVEWAY
WARRANT 1, EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
Warrant 1 is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes exist on the major-street and on the higher-volume minor-street approaches to the intersection. Two criteria are provided in the assessment of Warrant 1:

The minimum vehicular volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.

The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.

Although 24 hour counts were not conducted at the study intersections, this warrant can be determined as not met based on the extremely low minor street volume, which is the project driveway.

The highest hourly volumes on the minor street is the AM peak hour volume which is 54 vehicles.

Based on the volume conditions for this warrant, this minor street volume does not meet either the 100% or 80% conditions. Therefore, the warrant is not met.

WARRANT 2, FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
Warrant 2 is satisfied when the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major-street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only), for each of any four hours of an average day, all fall above either CA MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or Figure 4C-2 (depending on applicability) for the combination of approach lanes.

Although 24-hour counts were not conducted at the study intersections, this warrant can be determined as not met based on the extremely low minor street volume which is the project driveway.

The minor street volumes are no larger than the AM or the PM peak hour volume.

Therefore, even under the conditions of the maximum amount of continuous traffic on the major street, the minimum amount of minor traffic volume is not projected to meet the signal warrant even if the highest AM or PM peak hour volumes are used for the entire 8 hours.

WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
Although Warrant 3 is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street, it is common to use when evaluating a future traffic conditions.

Based on the projected peak hour traffic, the minor street volume is so low that the warrant is not met.

WARRANT 4, PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
Warrant 4 is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience an excessive delay in crossing the major street. The AM peak hour number for of trail crossings is 33 bicyclists and pedestrians. The PM peak hour number of trail crossings is 39.

Neither of these meets the pedestrian volume signal warrant. However, it should be noted that this warrant could be met over other hours of the day if an extended pedestrian count is performed to determine pedestrian peak hour volumes. This was not performed since a pedestrian signal already exists at the trail crossing just to the west of the project driveway. Therefore, this warrant was not determined.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 18
WARRANT 5, SCHOOL CROSSING
Warrant 5 is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word “schoolchildren” includes elementary through high school students.

A school is not nearby and not the primary reason for exploring a traffic signal. Therefore, this warrant does not apply.

WARRANT 6, COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM
The progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain the proper platooning of vehicles. Since a traffic signal at this location would result in less than 1000 feet to the adjacent intersections of Alcosta Blvd and Camino Ramon, a signal is not warranted at this location to maintain proper platooning. Therefore, this warrant does not apply.

WARRANT 7, CRASH EXPERIENCE
Warrant 7 conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. Based on the TIMS database, there has not been a correctable collision at this location searching back to January 2011. Therefore, this warrant is not met.

WARRANT 8, ROADWAY NETWORK
Warrant 8 is applied when a traffic control signal is considered for the intersection of two or more major routes in order to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow through a network.

Since the project driveway is not a major route, this warrant is not met.

WARRANT 9, INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING
Warrant 9 is applied for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a stop or yield sign is the principal reason for installing a signal.

Since this intersection is not near a railroad crossing, this warrant is not met.

Based on this signal warrant analysis, a traffic signal is not warranted for the project driveway.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 19
Table 3: Summary of Warrant Analysis
MUTCD Warrants Summary of Analysis Warrant Met?
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume. Minor Street Volume threshold not met. No Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume. Minor Street Volume threshold not met. No Warrant 3, Peak Hour. Minor Street Volume threshold not met. No Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume. Pedestrian Volume threshold not met. Pedestrian Signal Exists
Warrant 5, School Crossing. Not near a school. N/A
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System. Not applied since resultant spacing of signals would be less than 1000 feet. No
Warrant 7, Crash Experience. No correctable crashes within 12 months. No Warrant 8, Roadway Network. Volume threshold not met; minor street not a major route. No
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing. Not near a grade crossing. N/A

3.6 SITE ACCESS ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Various alternatives were considered in evaluating the most appropriate configuration at the intersection of Crow Canyon Road and the project driveway, which is the only access for the project. The current driveway is currently 65 feet wide with a 10-foot wide median island and it is located across from an existing driveway for a development on the north side of Crow Canyon Road.

The project is proposing to modify the driveway such that it will be 36 feet wide and shifted to the western edge of the existing driveway. At this proposed location it is offset from the existing opposing driveway to the north. This proposed configuration eliminates the possibility of concurrent eastbound and westbound left turn movements due to conflicting travel paths.

Four alternatives were evaluated to determine the recommended site access alternative and they are analyzed below:

Alternative 1 Maintain Existing Site Access
The existing site access would maintain all movements except the westbound left turn. There is a turn pocket for eastbound left turns into an existing development driveway on the north side of Crow Canyon Road. The existing geometry currently allows for both north and southbound left turns onto Crow Canyon Road from the driveways.

Since the project is proposing to shift the driveway slightly south, 15 feet of the center median on Crow Canyon Road would need to be removed to accommodate a northbound left turn from the project driveway.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 20
The study intersections continue to operate at an acceptable level with insignificant change in delay from the existing condition.

Based on collision history over the past ten years, there is no record of a collision at the project driveway due to the movements related to the median access. However, from a safety perspective based on many federal and state engineering studies, left turns from driveways on major arterials with eight lanes of traffic are highly discouraged.

The City of San Ramon’s Traffic and Circulation Policy 5.4-I-4 prioritizes maximizing the vehicular capacity of arterial roadways by controlling the number of intersections and minimizing residential and commercial driveway access. Crow Canyon Road is an arterial roadway with regional significance. In the vicinity of the project, this is the only uncontrolled median access point, and eliminating the left turns from the driveways would be consistent with City traffic policies and improve safety.

Based on City Policy and current roadway design for traffic safety standards, this alternative is not recommended.

Alternative 2 Signalize Project Driveway
This alternative evaluates signalizing the project driveway. The project driveway is immediately east of a signalized pedestrian crossing for the Iron Horse Trail. Signalizing the project driveway would replace the pedestrian only signal and encompass the trail crossing into the full signalized intersection with the project driveway and the existing driveway on the north side of Crow Canyon Road.

The following improvements are needed to accommodate a fully operational traffic signal at the intersection.
• Modify the median to provide a 150-foot left turn pocket • Remove 15 feet of the center median to accommodate the travel path for the northbound left turn. This can be mitigated by moving the project driveway 30 feet to the east. • Split phase signal timing is required for the northbound and southbound movements due to the off-set driveways. This can be mitigated by moving the project driveway 30 feet to the east. • Lead-lag signal timing phasing is required for the eastbound and westbound left turn movements due to the off-set driveway. This can be mitigated by moving the project driveway 30 feet to the east.
• A pedestrian only signal phase would be required due to the long distance from the northbound left turn and the crosswalk and the potential for driver confusion related to stopping for pedestrians.

The study intersections continue to operate at an acceptable level with insignificant change from the existing condition. The new traffic signal at the project driveway would operate at LOS C.

However, there are other operational issues associated with designing a traffic signal at this intersection.

The east/west width of the intersection (as measured from stop bar to stop bar) is over 200 feet. This distance can result in confusion in stopping for pedestrians as well as the appropriate stop locations,

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 21
particularly for the eastbound left turn, creating safety concerns. Due to these potential concerns, a traffic signal is not recommended.

The intersection does not meet the criteria for the traffic signal based on the warrant analysis. The pedestrian warrant was not evaluated since a pedestrian signal already exists. Installing a traffic signal when warrants are not met could create additional congestion and delays, as well as create an additional burden to maintain and coordinate an additional traffic signal.

The City of San Ramon’s Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Corridor Concept Plan dated June 2009, identifies the trail crossing of Crow Canyon Road as a key location for a grade-separated bridge for enhanced safety for trail users and to minimize traffic congestion and delays. Therefore, installing a full traffic signal as a measure to accommodate trail users could be a short-sighted plan and ultimately create more congestion and delay along the arterial. A traffic signal also would not offer the benefits of a gradeseparated crossing for pedestrians.

Given all these factors, a traffic signal is not recommended.

Alternative 3 Right In, Right Out
This alternative evaluates modifying the median opening to restrict left turns from the driveways.

These alternatives enhance traffic safety by minimizing unprotected cross traffic along the major arterial and is the recommended practice for suburban driveway access control along major arterials. The City of San Ramon’s Traffic and Circulation Policy 5.4-I-4 prioritizes maximizing the vehicular capacity of arterial roadways by controlling the number of intersections and minimizing residential and commercial driveway access.

It is noted that the preliminary fire access service plan shows a westbound left turn into the project driveway. Currently, this movement is prohibited for vehicles.

Inbound westbound project traffic can be accommodated at the existing signalized intersection of Camino Ramon at Crow Canyon Road, where u-turns are permitted. The level of service at this intersection would continue to operate at an acceptably with an additional 0.5 seconds of delay. This additional delay does not account for the existing trips for the existing office building that would be taken off the road by the project.

Alternative 3a evaluates the eastbound u-turn movement as an uncontrolled movement mid-block approximately 200 feet prior to the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard. U-turning vehicles would be required to find adequate gaps in traffic to make the u-turn movement. With the nearby signal, short natural breaks in traffic would be provided during the transition from the westbound through phase and the northbound left phase. Adequate distance of 200 feet is provided for vehicles to judge gaps in traffic.

Alternative 3b evaluates the eastbound u-turn movement at the signalized intersection at Alcosta Boulevard. Several improvements are needed in order to accommodate the modified signal and turn lane. A new signal post and mast arm would be required to accommodate a u-turn signal head. An existing light post with a signal head on the west leg of the intersection would need to be relocated.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 22
With the additional signal phase, the intersection of Alcosta Boulevard at Crow Canyon Road would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service with an increase in delay of 1.7 seconds and 1.1 seconds in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This additional delay does not account for the existing trips for the existing office building that would be taken off the road by the project. This delay would increase in the future as traffic along Crow Canyon Road increases, but remain at acceptable levels.

Alternative 3c is similar to 3a with the addition of the elimination of the eastbound left turn movement into the existing PG&E development to the north and the provision of a flush median break to allow emergency vehicle access. The eastbound left turn pocket would be eliminated by creating a full median.

However, the median break would remain to provide access for emergency vehicles. The median break would be flush with the roadway surface and alternative materials, such as cobblestone, can be incorporated to provide visual enhancement, while allowing unrestricted access for emergency vehicles and discouraging use by non-emergency vehicles. Alternative 3c is the recommended alternative.

Alternative 4 Allow Westbound Left Turns
This alternative eliminates both the northbound and southbound left turns out of the project driveway and driveway to the north, while allowing eastbound and westbound left turns into the two driveways.

An s-shaped median would be constructed to channelize the eastbound and westbound left turns while prohibiting northbound and southbound left turns out of the driveways. However, the project driveway would need to shift approximately 25 feet to the east in order to allow concurrent eastbound and westbound left turns, which would result in fewer project residential units.

To accommodate the westbound left turn, the median would be modified to provide a 150-foot left turn pocket. Since the preliminary fire access service plan shows a westbound left turn into the project driveway and this alternative would support fire access.

Similar to Alternative 3, an eastbound u-turn pocket would need to be constructed to allow u-turn movements. This can be provided either mid-block or at the signalized intersection of Alcosta. These options are shown in Alternative 4a and Alternative 4b, respectively.

Providing back-to-back left turn pockets would eliminate many trees in the median and change the characteristics of the roadway by replacing 500 feet of 15 foot wide, landscaped median with a 4 foot wide median with minimal landscape.

The low westbound left turn volumes of only 3 in the AM peak hour and 9 in the PM peak hour do not justify constructing a westbound left turn lane.

Given these factors, this alternative is not recommended.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Figure 6: Alternative 1 Improvements
161-088 | 06/2023 N
TJKM
Iron Horse Village
Remove 15’ from Center Median

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Figure 7: Alternative 2 Improvements
161-088 | 06/2023
N
TJKM
Iron Horse Village
Remove 15’ Center Median
Modify median to provide 150’ turn pocket
Westbound limit line
Project Driveway
Extend Pocket 150’
Install traffic signal at driveways with trail crossing and eliminate pedestrian only signal Eastbound limit line
Existing Crosswalk for Iron Horse Trail
120’
150’

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Figure 8: Alternative 3a Improvements
161-088 | 06/2023
N
TJKM
Iron Horse Village
Extend median to prohibit northbound left turns with modification to provide 150’ eastbound U-turn pocket mid-block
Extend Median to prohibit
northbound left turns
Modify median to provide 150’
eastbound U-turn pocket mid-block
120’
150’
150’

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Figure 9: Alternative 3b Improvements
161-088 | 06/2023
N
TJKM
Iron Horse Village
Extend median to prohibit northbound left turns
Modify median to provide 150’ eastbound U-turn pocket and provide U-turn signal phasing New signal post and mast arm
to accommodate U-turn phase
Existing post with signal
head to be relocated
120’
150’

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review 161-088 | 08/2023
N
TJKM
Figure 10: Alternative 3c Improvements
All left turn movements are prohibited at the driveway intersection. The eastbound left turn pocket is removed and a full median is constructed. The existing median break remains flush to the pavement with alternative materials to allow emergency vehicle access while being visually distinct. Double yellow striping as well as left turn prohibited regulatory signs are required.

Modify median to provide 150’
eastbound U-turn pocket mid-block
Remove left turn lane and
construct full median
Median break for emergency traffic
only. Use alternative materials to
provide flush surface for smooth access
for emergency vehicles.
120’
150’
150’

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review LEGEND
Figure 11: Alternative 4a Improvements
161-088 | 06/2023
N
TJKM
Iron Horse Village
Modify median with a 150’ EB left turn pocket and install S-diverter. 120’
150’
150’
46 (31)
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
Relocate Project Driveway
3 (9)
19 (61)
826 (1,415)
54 (36)
1,212 (1,147)

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review LEGEND
Relocate Project Driveway
3 (9)
19 (61)
826 (1,415)
54 (36)
Figure 12: Alternative 4b Improvements
161-088 | 06/2023
N
TJKM
Iron Horse Village
Modify median with a 150’ EB left turn pocket and install S-diverter. 120’
120’
150’
150’
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
46 (31)

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 31

4.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
This study evaluates project-related VMT as outlined in the adopted CCTA VMT methodology. The methodology and implementation guidelines were adopted by CCTA in July 2020 and updated in 2022. As of October 2022, the City of San Ramon has not adopted VMT procedures standards, so the CCTA standards were used.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (December 2018) provides guidance to analysts and local jurisdictions for implementing VMT as a metric for determining the transportation impact for land use projects. The OPR guidelines state that for analysis purposes, “VMT” refers to automobile VMT, specifically passenger vehicles and light trucks. Heavy truck traffic is typically excluded.

The CCTA guidelines include a screening process that describes five scenarios in which a project would be exempted from a VMT analysis requirement: 1) projects exempt from CEQA analysis, 2) small projects, 3) local serving projects, 4) projects in transit priority areas, and 5) projects in low VMT areas. It should be noted that even if a project satisfies one or more of the screening criteria, lead agencies may still require a VMT analysis if there is evidence that the project has characteristics that might lead to a significant amount of VMT. The project does not satisfy the requirements for screening criteria 1-4.

Under the CCTA VMT methodology, a low VMT area is defined as a city or unincorporated portion within one of the CCTA subregions where home-based VMT per resident is at least 15 percent below the countywide or where the commute VMT per employee is at least 15 percent below the regional average.

A conservative reading of the methodology would indicate that when the citywide average VMT per resident is above the countywide average, projects cannot be screened out based on location, and a VMT analysis must be completed. In such cases, the appropriate significance thresholds based on countywide or regional average would be applied. The methodology also permits the applicable average VMT for the subject municipality or unincorporated CCTA subregion to be utilized instead of the countywide or regional average, if it is less stringent. As the existing residential VMT per capita in the City of San Ramon is higher than the Contra Costa countywide average, a VMT analysis is required for this project.

Since this project is a conversion from an office (employment) land use to a residential land use, OPR guidance states “…Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds above should apply. If a residential or office project leads to a net increase in VMT, then the project’s VMT per capita or VMT per employee should be compared to the thresholds recommended above.” In summary, if the total VMT of this project is more than the total VMT of the office building that it is replacing, then it has a significant VMT impact and would need mitigation.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 32

4.1 SCREENING CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
CCTA guidance (CCTA Technical Procedures, 2022) on VMT analysis for land use conversion projects require the calculation of the previous land use (office building) total VMT to the new land use (residential homes) total VMT. If the new land use results in a net decrease in VMT, than its impacts are insignificant.

4.2 VMT FORECASTING AND ANALYSIS
TJKM obtained the CCTA travel demand model and calculated trip lengths for two different types of trips; work trips and residential trips. For work trips, the average trip length is 10.8 miles, whereas the residential trip length average is shorter at 6.73 miles. To calculate total VMT, TJKM used the project trip generation table and multiplied the total trips from the office land use and the residential land use for comparison purposes.

The existing general office generates 2,300 trips daily, which when multiplied by the average work trip length of 10.8 equals a total VMT of 24,840. The Iron Horse Village project generates 1,020 trips daily, which when multiplied by the average residential trip length of 6.73 results in a total VMT of 6,865.

The Iron Horse Village project generates fewer total VMT than the existing office, and thus TJKM finds that this project has an insignificant impact on VMT.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 35
Appendix A – Existing Traffic Counts

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
3 5
5 4
7 2
1 0
27 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 10
7 19
Peak Hr 35 26 15 0 76 0 0
Count Total 61 53 19 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
8:45 AM 7 7 6 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
1 8:30 AM 9 8 5 0 22 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
1 5
8:15 AM 10 6 3 0 19 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 4
8:00 AM 9 5 1 0 15 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 4
3 7:30 AM 9 10 2 0 21 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
0 10 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 6 6 0 0 12
0 0 0
HV% - - 6% 1% - - 4% -
1 2
7:15 AM 6 7 1 0 14 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 5 4 1
3 300 0 259 1,000 0 0 218 0 243 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
1% 2% - 3% - - - - 3%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 525
0 0 319 0 367 0
23 0 0 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 76 0
0 2,545 0
HV 0 0 32 3 0
Count Total 0 0 979 480 0 525 1,810 0 0 0 4,480 0
0 75 247 0 0 49 0 61 0 0 0 0 660 2,545
0 0 0 638 2,521
8:45 AM 0 0 169 59
0 0 44 0 69 0
594 2,404
8:30 AM 0 0 165 52 0 45 263
0 63 241 0 0 56 0 70 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 653 2,236
8:15 AM 0 0 84 80
0 0 69 0 43 0
636 1,935
8:00 AM 0 0 107 109 0 76 249
0 92 247 0 0 35 0 50 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 521 0
7:45 AM 0 0 126 86
0 0 28 0 46 0
426 0
7:30 AM 0 0 104 46 0 56 241
0 72 156 0 0 22 0 16 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 352 0
7:15 AM 0 0 134 26
0 0 16 0 12 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 90 22 0 46 166

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd n/a
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB - -
TOTAL 3.0% 0.96
WB 2.1% 0.97
NB 3.3% 0.91
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 4.2% 0.90
Date: 10/04/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 6
0 1
N
Alcosta Blvd
Crow Canyon Rd
Crow Canyon Rd
Alcosta Blvd
Crow Canyon Rd
TEV: 2,545
PHF: 0.96
1,000
259 1,259
768
0 218
243
559
461
0 300
525 825
1,218
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
76 0
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd n/a
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 3 23 0 0 8 0 7 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 133 0
Peak Hour 0 0 32 3
Count Total 0 0 56 5 0 15 38 0 0 9 0 10 0
0 0 7 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 20 76
0 0 0 22 68
8:45 AM 0 0 6 1
0 0 3 0 2 0
19 67
8:30 AM 0 0 8 1 0 1 7
0 1 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 15 62
8:15 AM 0 0 9 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
12 57
8:00 AM 0 0 9 0 0 1 4
0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 21 0
7:45 AM 0 0 6 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
14 0
7:30 AM 0 0 8 1 0 4 6
0 5 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 10 0
7:15 AM 0 0 6 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 4 1 0 2 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd n/a
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
2 4
5 3
1 1
0 0
16 2
Date: 10/04/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 4.8% 0.95
TOTAL 3.1% 0.90
TH RT
WB 1.8% 0.94
NB 6.3% 0.78
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 3.5% 0.85

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Camino Ramon Camino Ramon 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 20 146 22 0 10
14 5 9 393 0
7:15 AM 1 10 147 60
7:00 AM 0 6 106 47 2 18 148 16 0 6 9 7 0
17 20 10 560 0
7:45 AM 4 22 183 88
18 0 14 16 7 0
470 0
7:30 AM 0 10 144 54 0 19 231
9 6 0 18 12 9
679 2,102
8:00 AM 3 26 189 118 3 24 244
1 27 216 32 0 15 18 5 0 29 27 12
1 41 186 50 0 28
21 19 17 752 2,461
8:15 AM 7 30 141 122
48 0 14 23 3 0
30 24 10 706 2,849
8:45 AM 7 24 227 129
58 0 20 25 8 0
712 2,703
8:30 AM 11 27 163 96 3 36 195
30 10 0 34 17 15
1 34 201 70 0 28 30 18 0 30 26 9 834 3,004
Count Total 33 155 1,300 714 11 219 1,567 193 150 91 5,106 0 Peak
Hour
All 28 107 720
314 0 135 160 64 0
20 1 0 7 8 0 0 3 5 4 94 0
51 3,004 0
HV 0 10 29 7 0 0
465 8 135 826 226 0 90 108 39 0 115 86
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 9% 4% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% - 8% 7% 0% - 3% 6% 8% 3%
0 0
7:15 AM 4 2 4 7 17 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
West North South
7:00 AM 2 2 1 9 14 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 9 4 3 2 18
0 0 0 3 0 2
0 7:30 AM 7 5 1 4 17 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 1
0 0
8:15 AM 7 7 3 2 19 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0
8:00 AM 17 3 6 3 29 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
8:45 AM 13 7 3 5 28
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:30 AM 9 4 3 2 18 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
Peak Hour 46 21 15 12 94 0 0
Count Total 68 34 24 34 160 0 0 0 0 0 6 6
0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
N
Camino Ramon
Crow Canyon Rd
Crow Canyon Rd
Camino Ramon
Crow Canyon Rd
Camino Ramon
TEV: 3,004
PHF: 0.9
51 86
115
252
441
0 226
826
135
1,195
882
8 39
108
90 686
237
0 465
720
107
1,320
995
28 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Camino Ramon Camino Ramon 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
3 1 5 14 0
7:15 AM 0 0 3 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
17 0
7:30 AM 0 1 5 1 0 0 4
0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 3 0
0 0 4 0 0 2
1 0 3 17 0
7:45 AM 0 2 6 1
1 0 1 0 0 0
0 2 1 29 81
8:15 AM 0 2 5 0
0 0 3 3 0 0
18 66
8:00 AM 0 2 10 5 0 0 3
1 0 0 0 1 1
19 83
8:30 AM 0 2 6 1 0 0 4
0 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 6 1 0 1
2 0 0 18 84
8:45 AM 0 4 8 1
0 0 3 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 2 3 28 94
11 10 13 160 0
Peak Hour 0 10 29 7
Count Total 0 13 43 12 0 0 32 2 0 13 11 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
94 0
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Camino Ramon Camino Ramon 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 20 1 0 7 8 0 0 3 5 4

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

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
6 5
13 13
14 8
6 9
74 37
Date: 10/04/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 33.3% 0.38
TOTAL 3.4% 0.96
TH RT
WB 2.5% 0.96
NB 20.0% 0.63
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 4.4% 0.90

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Driveways Driveways
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 179 1 0 6
0 0 0 301 0
7:15 AM 4 3 159 6
7:00 AM 3 6 109 4 0 0 178 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 431 0
7:45 AM 3 3 212 3
0 0 1 0 1 0
358 0
7:30 AM 2 1 148 5 0 0 273
0 0 0 0 0 0
507 1,597
8:00 AM 1 2 215 4 0 0 313
0 0 282 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 295 2 0 0
0 0 0 540 1,836
8:15 AM 1 2 165 4
3 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 535 2,053
8:45 AM 2 6 229 3
0 0 2 0 0 0
471 1,949
8:30 AM 1 5 217 5 0 0 305
0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 299 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 541 2,087
Count Total 17 28 1,454 34 0 0 2,124 0 0 3 3,684 0
Peak
Hour
All 5 15 826
7 0 14 0 3 0
30 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 71 0
3 2,087 0
HV 0 2 36 0 0 0
16 0 0 1,212 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 13% 4% 0% - - 2% 20% - 20% - - - - - 33% 3%
1 0
7:15 AM 6 3 1 0 10 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 5
West North South
7:00 AM 5 2 0 0 7 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 5 4 0 0 9
0 0 0 10 1 2
1 7:30 AM 9 7 0 0 16 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 2
2 3
8:15 AM 10 8 0 1 19 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 9
7 0 6
8:00 AM 10 4 1 0 15 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 8 9 0 0 17
0 0 0 5 1 0
2 8:30 AM 10 10 0 0 20 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 6 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0
7 14
Peak Hour 38 31 1 1 71 0 0
Count Total 63 47 2 1 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 53
0 0 0 0 29 3 5
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
3 5
29 0
N
Driveways
Crow Canyon Rd
Crow Canyon Rd
Driveways
Crow Canyon Rd
Driveways
TEV: 2,087
PHF: 0.96
3 0
0 3
20 0
5 1,212
0 1,217
826
0 5
00 16
5 0
16 826
15 862
1,225
5 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Driveways Driveways
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 7 0
7:15 AM 0 0 6 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 5 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
10 0
7:30 AM 0 0 9 0 0 0 7
0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 16 0
7:45 AM 0 0 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 15 50
8:15 AM 0 0 10 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
9 42
8:00 AM 0 0 10 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
19 59
8:30 AM 0 1 9 0 0 0 10
0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 9 0 0 0
0 0 0 20 63
8:45 AM 0 1 7 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 17 71
0 0 1 113 0
Peak Hour 0 2 36 0
Count Total 0 2 61 0 0 0 45 2 0 2 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0
RT
71 0
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Driveways Driveways
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 30 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

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

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
1 1
1 2
4 0
1 2
12 1 0 2 0 0 4 3 7
5 7
Peak Hr 9 8 2 0 19 1 0
Count Total 19 21 8 0 48 2 0 3 0 5 0 0
5:45 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 5:30 PM 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1
5:15 PM 2 2 1 0 5 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 1 1
5:00 PM 3 2 0 0 5 1
0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 1
0 4:30 PM 2 4 2 0 8 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 9 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 3 1 0 0 4
0 1 0
HV% - - 0% 2% - - 0% -
0 1
4:15 PM 4 5 1 0 10 1 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 3 4 2
1 305 0 202 829 0 0 318 0 365 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 1% - 0% - - - - 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 1,123
0 4 622 0 683 0
7 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 19 0
0 3,142 0
HV 0 0 4 5 0
Count Total 0 0 2,096 520 0 437 1,671 0 0 0 6,033 0
0 50 198 0 1 53 0 82 0 0 0 0 696 3,065
0 0 0 754 3,142
5:45 PM 0 0 249 63
0 0 64 0 92 0
800 3,112
5:30 PM 0 0 288 82 0 36 192
0 48 204 0 0 83 0 94 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 815 3,055
5:15 PM 0 0 296 75
0 0 86 0 102 0
773 2,968
5:00 PM 0 0 272 81 0 54 220
0 64 213 0 0 85 0 77 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 724 0
4:45 PM 0 0 267 67
0 1 83 0 77 0
743 0
4:30 PM 0 0 231 54 0 58 220
0 65 199 0 1 84 0 79 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 728 0
4:15 PM 0 0 262 53
0 1 84 0 80 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 231 45 0 62 225

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd n/a
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB - -
TOTAL 0.6% 0.96
WB 0.8% 0.93
NB 0.3% 0.91
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.6% 0.96
Date: 10/04/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
1 0
0 1
0 0
4 3
0 0
N
Alcosta Blvd
Crow Canyon Rd
Crow Canyon Rd
Alcosta Blvd
Crow Canyon Rd
TEV: 3,142
PHF: 0.96
829
202 1,031
1,488
0 318
365
507
683
0 305
1,123 1,428
1,147
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Peak Hour 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Count Total 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 4
4 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 1
1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
19 0
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd n/a
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 1 7 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 48 0
Peak Hour 0 0 4 5
Count Total 0 0 13 6 0 6 15 0 0 6 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17
0 0 0 5 19
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
5 22
5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 27
5:15 PM 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 31
5:00 PM 0 0 2 1 0 0 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 8 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 1
0 0 1 0 1 0
10 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 2 2
0 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 9 0
4:15 PM 0 0 4 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 1 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Alcosta Blvd n/a
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
1 2
1 3
2 5
1 4
19 11
Date: 10/04/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.8% 0.88
TOTAL 0.9% 0.96
TH RT
WB 0.5% 0.97
NB 1.1% 0.86
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.2% 0.89

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Camino Ramon Camino Ramon 15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
4 35 187 55 0 67
73 47 38 881 0
4:15 PM 4 23 224 58
4:00 PM 1 25 185 54 7 32 206 76 0 61 55 21 0
85 43 36 884 0
4:45 PM 2 15 209 60
57 0 91 48 23 0
869 0
4:30 PM 1 23 201 43 3 39 191
39 18 0 67 47 41
886 3,520
5:00 PM 1 18 194 55 3 45 181
2 32 187 66 0 71 53 29 0 90 43 27
2 27 186 69 0 68
119 47 43 953 3,592
5:15 PM 3 32 237 60
60 0 96 69 22 0
98 61 34 889 3,675
5:45 PM 2 15 199 33
61 0 73 46 25 0
947 3,670
5:30 PM 1 21 224 45 6 25 169
54 39 0 87 44 39
2 42 157 59 0 55 45 24 0 100 42 39 814 3,603
Count Total 15 172 1,673 408 29 277 1,464 719 374 297 7,123 0 Peak
Hour
All 7 86 864
503 0 582 409 201 0
5 1 0 4 3 0 0 3 2 1 33 0
143 3,675 0
HV 0 1 4 9 0 0
220 13 129 723 256 0 308 222 115 0 394 195
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 1% 0% - 1% 1% 0% - 1% 1% 1% 1%
0 1
4:15 PM 4 4 2 2 12 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 4 3 0 2 9 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 3 1 2 3 9
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 4:30 PM 4 2 0 1 7 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
1 0
5:15 PM 4 2 2 0 8 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 2 0
5:00 PM 2 1 2 2 7 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 3 1 3 1 8
0 0 0 1 0 0
2 5:30 PM 5 2 1 1 9 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
3 5
Peak Hour 14 6 7 6 33 0 0
Count Total 29 16 12 12 69 0 0 0 0 0 4 7
0 0 0 3 3 3 2
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
3 2
3 3
N
Camino Ramon
Crow Canyon Rd
Crow Canyon Rd
Camino Ramon
Crow Canyon Rd
Camino Ramon
TEV: 3,675
PHF: 0.96
143
195
394
732
564
0 256
723
129
1,121
1,386
13 308
222115
544
645
0 220
864
86 1,177
1,181
7 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Camino Ramon Camino Ramon 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
1 0 1 9 0
4:15 PM 0 0 3 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 1 2 1 0 0 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
12 0
4:30 PM 0 1 1 2 0 0 1
0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 1
1 0 0 7 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 1
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 7 35
5:15 PM 0 1 1 2
0 0 1 1 0 0
9 37
5:00 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
1 0 0 2 1 0
8 31
5:30 PM 0 0 0 5 0 0 2
0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 9 33
5:45 PM 0 1 1 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 0 8 32
6 4 2 69 0
Peak Hour 0 1 4 9
Count Total 0 4 11 14 0 0 11 5 0 6 6 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
33 0
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Camino Ramon Camino Ramon 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 5 1 0 4 3 0 0 3 2 1

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

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
8 12
7 7
9 8
14 13
78 38
Date: 10/04/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.0% 0.44
TOTAL 0.7% 0.97
TH RT
WB 0.7% 0.94
NB 0.0% 0.54
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.6% 0.97

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Driveways Driveways
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 281 0 0 2
0 0 2 603 0
4:15 PM 0 0 316 1
4:00 PM 2 1 279 1 0 0 312 0 0 6 0 0 0
1 0 7 601 0
4:45 PM 0 0 327 4
0 0 1 0 0 0
601 0
4:30 PM 1 0 288 1 0 0 302
0 0 0 0 0 1
632 2,437
5:00 PM 0 0 357 1 0 0 305
0 0 296 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 287 0 0 0
0 0 1 670 2,504
5:15 PM 1 0 365 0
0 0 5 0 1 0
1 0 3 633 2,590
5:45 PM 0 0 314 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
655 2,558
5:30 PM 2 0 366 0 0 0 259
0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 249 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 566 2,524
Count Total 6 1 2,612 8 0 0 2,291 2 0 18 4,961 0
Peak
Hour
All 3 0 1,415
0 0 19 0 4 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0
6 2,590 0
HV 0 0 9 0 0 0
5 0 0 1,147 0 0 9 0 4 0 1 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% - 1% 0% - - 1% - - 0% - 0% - 0% - 0% 1%
0 1
4:15 PM 4 4 0 0 8 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 7
West North South
4:00 PM 3 5 0 0 8 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 3 1 0 0 4
0 1 0 7 0 0
0 4:30 PM 2 3 0 0 5 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 11 1
2 1
5:15 PM 2 4 0 0 6 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 6
5 2 0
5:00 PM 3 2 0 0 5 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 1 1 0 0 2
0 0 0 11 0 3
1 5:30 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 7 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 2
5 8
Peak Hour 9 8 0 0 17 1 0
Count Total 19 21 0 0 40 2 1 0 0 3 0 65
0 0 1 0 29 4 5
0 1
0 0
00 00
0 0
0 0
4 5
29 0
N
Driveways
Crow Canyon Rd
Crow Canyon Rd
Driveways
Crow Canyon Rd
Driveways
TEV: 2,590
PHF: 0.97
6 0
1 7
0 0
0 1,147
0 1,147
1,420
0 9
04 5
13 0
5 1,415
0 1,423
1,165
3 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Driveways Driveways
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 8 0
4:15 PM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 5

UT LT TH RT UT LT
8 0
4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0
4:45 PM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 22
5:15 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 25
5:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 20
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 17
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15
0 0 0 40 0
Peak Hour 0 0 9 0
Count Total 0 0 19 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0
RT
17 0
Interval
Start
Crow Canyon Rd Crow Canyon Rd Driveways Driveways
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review P-03010 - San Ramon - Crow Canyon Rd TMCs
IDAX Data Solutions
Iron Horse Regional Trail/Crow Canyon Rd
October 4th, 2022
Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound
7:00 AM 0 2 7:00 AM 3 0
7:15 AM 0 0 7:15 AM 1 2
7:30 AM 2 1 7:30 AM 4 3
7:45 AM 0 2 7:45 AM 2 3
8:00 AM 1 1 8:00 AM 0 7
8:15 AM 0 2 8:15 AM 3 2
8:30 AM 0 1 8:30 AM 1 4
8:45 AM 0 2 8:45 AM 4 1
4:00 PM 1 0 4:00 PM 1 4
4:15 PM 1 4 4:15 PM 2 3
4:30 PM 0 1 4:30 PM 4 2
4:45 PM 1 0 4:45 PM 3 1
5:00 PM 2 4 5:00 PM 3 1
5:15 PM 0 1 5:15 PM 2 3
5:30 PM 5 1 5:30 PM 2 3
5:45 PM 2 1 5:45 PM 4 5
AM Total 3 11 AM Total 18 22
PM Total 12 12 PM Total 21 22
Daily Total 15 23 Daily Total 39 44
Pedestrians Bikes
Time Iron Horse Regional Trail Time Iron Horse Regional Trail

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review 7:00 AM
2 7:15 AM2
7:30 AM
4 7:45 AM3
8:00 AM3
8:15 AM3
8:30 AM3
8:45 AM5
4:00 PM4
4:15 PM4
4:30 PM6
4:45 PM2
5:00 PM3
5:15 PM4
5:30 PM7
5:45 PM5
AM Total 25
PM Total 35
Daily Total 60
Signal Activations
Time Total Activations

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 29
Appendix B – Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Camino Ramon & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Existing AM Alternative 1 12:08 pm 09/26/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 720 465 142 826 226 90 108 39 115 86 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 720 465 142 826 226 90 108 39 115 86 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 847 547 151 879 240 115 138 50 121 91 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 179 4019 990 200 3211 857 323 175 147 211 135 74 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.62 0.62 0.06 0.63 0.63 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 5092 1359 3456 1870 1575 3456 2207 1220 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 847 547 151 832 287 115 138 50 121 72 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1609 1626 1728 1870 1575 1728 1777 1651 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 7.7 26.7 5.8 10.4 10.7 4.2 9.7 4.0 4.6 5.3 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 7.7 26.7 5.8 10.4 10.7 4.2 9.7 4.0 4.6 5.3 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 4019 990 200 3043 1025 323 175 147 211 108 101 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.21 0.55 0.75 0.27 0.28 0.36 0.79 0.34 0.57 0.66 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 4019 990 282 3043 1025 691 374 315 973 500 465 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 11.0 14.5 62.7 11.1 11.2 57.4 59.9 57.3 61.7 62.0 62.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.5 0.1 2.2 3.9 0.2 0.7 0.2 3.0 0.5 0.9 2.6 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 2.6 9.6 2.6 3.6 3.9 1.9 4.8 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 100.1 11.1 16.7 66.6 11.4 11.9 57.6 62.9 57.8 62.6 64.6 65.9 LnGrp LOS F BBEBBEEEEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1553 1270 303 266
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 18.0 60.0 64.1
Approach LOS C B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 89.3 14.2 12.0 90.1 18.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 37.0 * 38 7.0 41.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 28.7 7.9 8.2 12.7 11.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 2.8 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Alcosta Blvd & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Existing AM Alternative 1 12:08 pm 09/26/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 525 300 259 1000 218 243
Future Volume (veh/h) 525 300 259 1000 218 243
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 583 333 267 1031 240 267
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 3061 945 383 3911 413 334
Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.77 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1577 3456 5274 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 583 333 267 1031 240 267
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1577 1728 1702 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 9.6 6.7 5.3 5.9 8.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 9.6 6.7 5.3 5.9 8.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3061 945 383 3911 413 334
V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.35 0.70 0.26 0.58 0.80
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3061 945 422 3911 1305 1054
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.2 9.2 38.5 3.1 37.5 38.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.0 3.4 0.2 0.5 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 3.1 2.9 1.1 2.4 2.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.3 10.2 41.9 3.3 38.0 40.3
LnGrp LOS A B D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 916 1298 507
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.0 11.2 39.2
Approach LOS A B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 59.9 15.1 74.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 * 4.3 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 30 * 34 * 46
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 11.6 10.4 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.4 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Camino Ramon & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Existing PM Alternative 1 10:36 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 864 220 142 723 256 308 222 115 394 195 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 864 220 142 723 256 308 222 115 394 195 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 104 971 247 146 745 264 358 258 134 448 222 162 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 151 3008 740 195 2318 760 543 294 247 539 312 217 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.48 0.48 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1583 3456 4826 1582 3456 1870 1576 3456 1996 1391 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 971 247 146 745 264 358 258 134 448 196 188 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1583 1728 1609 1582 1728 1870 1576 1728 1777 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 12.8 13.3 5.6 12.8 14.1 13.2 18.2 10.6 17.0 14.2 15.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 12.8 13.3 5.6 12.8 14.1 13.2 18.2 10.6 17.0 14.2 15.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 151 3008 740 195 2318 760 543 294 247 539 277 251 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.32 0.33 0.75 0.32 0.35 0.66 0.88 0.54 0.83 0.71 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 154 3008 740 256 2318 760 691 374 315 973 500 453 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.7 22.5 22.7 62.8 21.6 21.9 53.5 55.6 52.4 55.2 54.0 54.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.1 0.3 1.2 5.5 0.4 1.3 0.7 15.0 0.7 1.3 1.2 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 4.8 5.1 2.6 4.8 5.4 5.8 9.8 4.3 7.5 6.4 6.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.7 22.8 23.9 68.3 21.9 23.1 54.2 70.6 53.1 56.5 55.3 56.1 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C D E D E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1322 1155 750 832
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.0 28.1 59.7 56.1
Approach LOS C C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 68.1 27.1 10.9 69.8 27.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 38.0 * 38 6.0 42.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 15.3 19.0 6.0 16.1 20.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Alcosta Blvd & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Existing PM Alternative 1 10:36 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1123 305 202 829 318 365
Future Volume (veh/h) 1123 305 202 829 318 365
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1170 318 217 891 349 401
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2814 871 382 3663 581 469
Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.11 0.72 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1581 3456 5274 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1170 318 217 891 349 401
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1581 1728 1702 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 10.2 5.4 5.4 8.4 12.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 10.2 5.4 5.4 8.4 12.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2814 871 382 3663 581 469
V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.36 0.57 0.24 0.60 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2814 871 384 3663 1305 1054
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8 11.3 38.0 4.4 34.6 36.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 3.4 2.3 1.4 3.4 4.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.2 12.5 39.2 4.5 35.0 38.1
LnGrp LOS B B D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1488 1108 750
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.3 11.3 36.7
Approach LOS B B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 55.6 19.4 70.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 * 4.3 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 * 31 * 34 * 46
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 14.0 14.6 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.6 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 210
Appendix C – Existing plus Project Conditions Level of Service Alternative 1

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Camino Ramon & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Existing AM Alternative 1 w/ Project 11:21 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 734 465 150 867 226 90 108 41 115 86 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 734 465 150 867 226 90 108 41 115 86 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 864 547 160 922 240 115 138 53 121 91 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 179 4010 988 205 3245 828 323 175 147 211 135 74 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.62 0.62 0.06 0.63 0.63 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 5146 1314 3456 1870 1575 3456 2207 1220 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 864 547 160 863 299 115 138 53 121 72 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1609 1634 1728 1870 1575 1728 1777 1651 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 7.9 26.8 6.2 10.9 11.1 4.2 9.7 4.3 4.6 5.3 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 7.9 26.8 6.2 10.9 11.1 4.2 9.7 4.3 4.6 5.3 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 4010 988 205 3043 1030 323 175 147 211 108 101 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.22 0.55 0.78 0.28 0.29 0.36 0.79 0.36 0.57 0.66 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 4010 988 205 3043 1030 691 374 315 973 500 465 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 11.1 14.6 62.6 11.2 11.3 57.4 59.9 57.4 61.7 62.0 62.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.5 0.1 2.2 16.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 3.0 0.5 0.9 2.6 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 2.7 9.6 3.1 3.7 4.0 1.9 4.8 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 100.1 11.2 16.9 78.8 11.5 12.0 57.6 62.8 57.9 62.6 64.6 65.9 LnGrp LOS F BBEBBEEEEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1570 1322 306 266
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 19.7 60.0 64.1
Approach LOS C B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 89.1 14.2 12.0 90.1 18.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 40.0 * 38 7.0 41.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 28.8 7.9 8.2 13.1 11.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.0 3.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Alcosta Blvd & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Existing AM Alternative 1 w/ Project 11:21 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 530 303 259 1002 219 243
Future Volume (veh/h) 530 303 259 1002 219 243
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 589 337 267 1033 241 267
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 3061 945 383 3911 413 334
Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.77 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1577 3456 5274 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 589 337 267 1033 241 267
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1577 1728 1702 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 9.8 6.7 5.3 5.9 8.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 9.8 6.7 5.3 5.9 8.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3061 945 383 3911 413 334
V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.36 0.70 0.26 0.58 0.80
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3061 945 422 3911 1305 1054
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.2 9.2 38.5 3.1 37.5 38.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.1 3.4 0.2 0.5 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 3.1 2.9 1.2 2.4 2.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.3 10.2 41.9 3.3 38.0 40.3
LnGrp LOS A B D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 926 1300 508
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.0 11.2 39.2
Approach LOS A B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 59.9 15.1 74.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 * 4.3 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 30 * 34 * 46
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 11.8 10.4 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.4 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Camino Ramon & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Existing PM Alternative 1 with Project 11:22 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 910 220 155 750 256 308 222 121 394 195 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 910 220 155 750 256 308 222 121 394 195 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 104 1022 247 160 773 264 358 258 141 448 222 162 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 151 2982 734 209 2318 760 543 294 247 539 312 217 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.48 0.48 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1583 3456 4826 1582 3456 1870 1576 3456 1996 1391 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 1022 247 160 773 264 358 258 141 448 196 188 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1583 1728 1609 1582 1728 1870 1576 1728 1777 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 13.7 13.4 6.2 13.4 14.1 13.2 18.2 11.2 17.0 14.2 15.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 13.7 13.4 6.2 13.4 14.1 13.2 18.2 11.2 17.0 14.2 15.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 151 2982 734 209 2318 760 543 294 247 539 277 251 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.34 0.34 0.77 0.33 0.35 0.66 0.88 0.57 0.83 0.71 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 154 2982 734 282 2318 760 691 374 315 973 500 453 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.7 23.1 23.0 62.5 21.7 21.9 53.5 55.6 52.7 55.2 54.0 54.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.1 0.3 1.2 5.5 0.4 1.3 0.7 14.9 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 5.2 5.2 2.8 5.0 5.4 5.8 9.8 4.5 7.5 6.4 6.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.7 23.4 24.3 68.0 22.1 23.1 54.2 70.6 53.4 56.5 55.3 56.1 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C D E D E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1373 1197 757 832
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.4 28.5 59.7 56.1
Approach LOS C C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 67.6 27.1 10.9 69.8 27.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 37.0 * 38 6.0 42.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 15.7 19.0 6.0 16.1 20.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 1.1 0.0 2.6 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Alcosta Blvd & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Existing PM Alternative 1 with Project 11:22 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1126 307 202 835 321 365
Future Volume (veh/h) 1126 307 202 835 321 365
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1173 320 217 898 353 401
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2814 871 382 3663 581 469
Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.11 0.72 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1581 3456 5274 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1173 320 217 898 353 401
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1581 1728 1702 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 10.3 5.4 5.4 8.5 12.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 10.3 5.4 5.4 8.5 12.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2814 871 382 3663 581 469
V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.37 0.57 0.25 0.61 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2814 871 384 3663 1305 1054
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8 11.4 38.0 4.4 34.7 36.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 3.4 2.3 1.4 3.5 4.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.2 12.6 39.2 4.5 35.1 38.1
LnGrp LOS B B D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1493 1115 754
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.3 11.3 36.7
Approach LOS B B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 55.6 19.4 70.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 * 4.3 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 * 31 * 34 * 46
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 14.0 14.6 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.6 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 211
Appendix D – Existing plus Project Conditions Level of Service Alternative 2

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Camino Ramon & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj AM Alternative 2 12:08 pm 09/26/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 734 465 147 867 226 90 108 41 115 86 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 734 465 147 867 226 90 108 41 115 86 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 864 547 156 922 240 115 138 53 121 91 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 179 4034 994 205 3265 833 310 168 142 211 135 74 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.06 0.63 0.63 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 5146 1314 3456 1870 1585 3456 2207 1220 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 864 547 156 863 299 115 138 53 121 72 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1609 1634 1728 1870 1585 1728 1777 1651 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 7.8 26.5 6.0 10.8 11.0 4.2 9.8 4.3 4.6 5.3 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 7.8 26.5 6.0 10.8 11.0 4.2 9.8 4.3 4.6 5.3 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 4034 994 205 3062 1037 310 168 142 211 108 101 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.21 0.55 0.76 0.28 0.29 0.37 0.82 0.37 0.57 0.66 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 4034 994 282 3062 1037 691 374 317 973 500 465 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 10.8 14.3 62.6 11.0 11.0 57.9 60.4 57.9 61.7 62.0 62.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.5 0.1 2.2 4.0 0.2 0.6 0.3 3.8 0.6 0.9 2.6 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 2.7 9.5 2.7 3.7 3.9 1.9 4.8 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 100.1 11.0 16.5 66.6 11.2 11.6 58.1 64.2 58.5 62.6 64.6 65.9 LnGrp LOS F BBEBBEEEEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1570 1318 306 266
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 17.8 60.9 64.1
Approach LOS C B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 89.6 14.2 12.0 90.7 18.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 37.0 * 38 7.0 41.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 28.5 7.9 8.2 13.0 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 3.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Alcosta Blvd & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj AM Alternative 2 12:08 pm 09/26/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 530 303 260 1000 218 245
Future Volume (veh/h) 530 303 260 1000 218 245
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 589 337 268 1031 240 269
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 3057 949 383 3907 416 336
Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.77 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 3456 5274 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 589 337 268 1031 240 269
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1728 1702 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 9.8 6.7 5.3 5.9 8.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 9.8 6.7 5.3 5.9 8.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3057 949 383 3907 416 336
V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.36 0.70 0.26 0.58 0.80
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3057 949 422 3907 1305 1054
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.2 9.2 38.6 3.1 37.4 38.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.0 3.5 0.2 0.5 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 3.1 2.9 1.1 2.4 2.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.3 10.2 42.0 3.3 37.9 40.2
LnGrp LOS A B D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 926 1299 509
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.0 11.3 39.1
Approach LOS A B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 59.9 15.1 74.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 * 4.3 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 30 * 34 * 46
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 11.8 10.4 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.4 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: Project Driveway & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj AM Alternative 2 12:08 pm 09/26/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 826 16 3 1212 5 46 08003
Future Volume (veh/h) 20 826 16 3 1212 5 46 08003
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 918 18 3 1409 6 58 0 10 0 0 4
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 80 2735 53 7 2510 11 110 0 91 0 0 506
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 6545 128 1781 6662 28 1781 0 1462 0 0 1562 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 22 676 260 3 1020 395 58 0 10 0 0 4 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1609 1847 1781 1609 1865 1781 0 1462 0 0 1562 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 10.0 10.0 0.2 17.5 17.6 3.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 10.0 10.0 0.2 17.5 17.6 3.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 2017 772 7 1818 703 110 0 91 0 0 506 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.56 0.56 0.53 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 170 2017 772 85 1818 703 110 0 91 0 0 506 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) 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.5 20.7 20.7 52.2 25.9 25.9 47.8 0.0 46.5 0.0 0.0 24.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.4 1.1 33.6 1.2 3.1 16.8 0.0 2.5 0.0 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 3.8 4.5 0.1 6.8 8.2 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.2 21.1 21.8 85.8 27.1 28.9 64.5 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 LnGrp LOS D C C F C C E A D A A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 958 1418 68 4
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 27.7 62.3 24.1
Approach LOS C C E C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 49.5 11.0 10.3 45.2 38.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5.6 * 5.6 4.5 * 5.6 * 5.6 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5 * 39 6.5 * 10 * 34 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 12.0 5.3 3.3 19.6 2.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Camino Ramon & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj PM Alternative 2 10:36 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 910 220 146 750 256 308 222 121 394 195 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 910 220 146 750 256 308 222 121 394 195 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 104 1022 247 151 773 264 358 258 141 448 222 162 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 151 3055 753 200 2360 775 535 290 245 517 299 209 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 4826 1585 3456 1870 1585 3456 2000 1396 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 1022 247 151 773 264 358 258 141 448 196 188 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1609 1585 1728 1870 1585 1728 1777 1619 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 13.4 13.1 5.8 13.2 13.8 13.2 18.3 11.1 17.1 14.2 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 13.4 13.1 5.8 13.2 13.8 13.2 18.3 11.1 17.1 14.2 15.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 151 3055 753 200 2360 775 535 290 245 517 266 242 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.33 0.33 0.76 0.33 0.34 0.67 0.89 0.57 0.87 0.74 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 154 3055 753 256 2360 775 691 374 317 973 500 456 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.7 22.1 22.1 62.7 21.0 21.1 53.8 55.9 52.9 56.1 54.9 55.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.1 0.3 1.2 5.7 0.3 1.0 0.8 16.4 0.8 1.8 1.5 2.0 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 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.7 4.9 5.2 5.8 9.9 4.5 7.6 6.5 6.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.7 22.4 23.2 68.3 21.3 22.2 54.6 72.3 53.7 57.8 56.4 57.2 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C D E D E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1373 1188 757 832
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.5 27.5 60.4 57.4
Approach LOS C C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 69.1 26.2 10.9 71.0 26.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 38.0 * 38 6.0 42.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 15.4 19.1 6.0 15.8 20.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 1.1 0.0 2.6 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Alcosta Blvd & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj PM Alternative 2 10:36 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1126 307 202 835 321 365
Future Volume (veh/h) 1126 307 202 835 321 365
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1173 320 217 898 353 401
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2814 874 382 3663 581 469
Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.11 0.72 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 3456 5274 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1173 320 217 898 353 401
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1728 1702 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 10.2 5.4 5.4 8.5 12.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 10.2 5.4 5.4 8.5 12.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2814 874 382 3663 581 469
V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.37 0.57 0.25 0.61 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2814 874 384 3663 1305 1054
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.73 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8 11.4 38.0 4.4 34.7 36.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 3.4 2.3 1.4 3.5 4.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.1 12.2 39.2 4.5 35.1 38.1
LnGrp LOS B B D A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1493 1115 754
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 11.3 36.7
Approach LOS B B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 55.6 19.4 70.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 * 4.3 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 * 31 * 34 * 46
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 14.0 14.6 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.6 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
11: Project Driveway & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj PM Alternative 2 10:36 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 1415 52 9 1147 0 31 05106
Future Volume (veh/h) 3 1415 52 9 1147 0 31 05106
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 1538 57 10 1247 0 34 05107
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 7 2288 85 21 2347 0 273 0 243 58 0 405
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.36 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.00 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 6414 238 1781 6696 0 1781 0 1585 196 0 1369 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 1157 438 10 1247 0 34 05800
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1609 1826 1781 1609 0 1781 0 1585 1565 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 23.3 23.4 0.6 17.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 23.3 23.4 0.6 17.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 0.87
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7 1722 651 21 2347 0 273 0 243 463 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.67 0.67 0.47 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 77 1722 651 77 2347 0 273 0 243 463 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) 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.1 31.3 31.3 56.5 28.8 0.0 42.0 0.0 41.4 28.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.4 1.8 4.8 14.6 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 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 0.1 9.2 11.0 0.4 6.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.5 33.1 36.1 71.0 29.6 0.0 43.0 0.0 41.5 28.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F C D E C A D A D C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1598 1257 39 8
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.0 29.9 42.8 28.7
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.4 47.0 22.6 5.5 47.9 39.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 * 37 17.6 5.0 * 37 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 25.4 3.9 2.2 19.6 2.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review Iron Horse Village Traffic Study
Page | 212
Appendix E – Existing plus Project Conditions Level of Service Alternative 3

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Camino Ramon & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj AM Alternative 3 12:08 pm 09/26/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 734 465 151 867 226 90 108 41 115 86 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 734 465 151 867 226 90 108 41 115 86 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 864 547 161 922 240 115 138 53 121 91 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 179 4025 991 210 3265 833 310 168 142 211 135 74 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.06 0.63 0.63 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 5146 1314 3456 1870 1585 3456 2207 1220 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 864 547 161 863 299 115 138 53 121 72 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1609 1634 1728 1870 1585 1728 1777 1651 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 7.8 26.6 6.2 10.8 11.0 4.2 9.8 4.3 4.6 5.3 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 7.8 26.6 6.2 10.8 11.0 4.2 9.8 4.3 4.6 5.3 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 179 4025 991 210 3062 1037 310 168 142 211 108 101 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.21 0.55 0.77 0.28 0.29 0.37 0.82 0.37 0.57 0.66 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 4025 991 282 3062 1037 691 374 317 973 500 465 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 10.9 14.5 62.5 11.0 11.0 57.9 60.4 57.9 61.7 62.0 62.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.5 0.1 2.2 5.7 0.2 0.7 0.3 3.8 0.6 0.9 2.6 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 2.7 9.6 2.9 3.7 4.0 1.9 4.8 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 100.1 11.1 16.7 68.1 11.2 11.7 58.1 64.2 58.5 62.6 64.6 65.9 LnGrp LOS F BBEBBEEEEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1570 1323 306 266
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 18.3 60.9 64.1
Approach LOS C B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 89.4 14.2 12.0 90.7 18.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 37.0 * 38 7.0 41.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 28.6 7.9 8.2 13.0 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 3.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Alcosta Blvd & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj AM Alternative 3 12:08 pm 09/26/2022 Baseline Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 530 303 259 1008 0 219 0 243 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 530 303 259 1008 0 219 0 243 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 589 337 267 1039 0 241 0 267
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220202
Cap, veh/h 71 3061 950 383 3451 0 413 0 334
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.68 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 3456 5274 0 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 589 337 267 1039 0 241 0 267
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1728 1702 0 1728 0 1395 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 4.7 9.7 6.7 7.5 0.0 5.9 0.0 8.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 4.7 9.7 6.7 7.5 0.0 5.9 0.0 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 71 3061 950 383 3451 0 413 0 334 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.19 0.35 0.70 0.30 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 135 3061 950 422 3451 0 1305 0 1054 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.7 8.2 9.2 38.5 5.9 0.0 37.5 0.0 38.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.5 0.1 1.0 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 1.5 3.1 2.9 2.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.2 8.3 10.2 41.9 6.2 0.0 38.0 0.0 40.3 LnGrp LOS E A B D A A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 977 1306 508
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.4 13.5 39.2
Approach LOS B B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 59.9 15.1 8.1 66.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 * 4.3 4.5 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 30 * 34 6.8 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 11.7 10.4 4.5 9.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.0 2.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Camino Ramon & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj PM Alternative 3 10:36 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 910 220 155 750 256 308 222 121 394 195 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 910 220 155 750 256 308 222 121 394 195 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 104 1022 247 160 773 264 358 258 141 448 222 162 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 151 3038 748 209 2360 775 535 290 245 517 299 209 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 6434 1585 3456 4826 1585 3456 1870 1585 3456 2000 1396 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 1022 247 160 773 264 358 258 141 448 196 188 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1609 1585 1728 1609 1585 1728 1870 1585 1728 1777 1619 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 13.5 13.2 6.2 13.2 13.8 13.2 18.3 11.1 17.1 14.2 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 13.5 13.2 6.2 13.2 13.8 13.2 18.3 11.1 17.1 14.2 15.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 151 3038 748 209 2360 775 535 290 245 517 266 242 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.34 0.33 0.77 0.33 0.34 0.67 0.89 0.57 0.87 0.74 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 154 3038 748 282 2360 775 691 374 317 973 500 456 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.7 22.4 22.3 62.5 21.0 21.1 53.8 55.9 52.9 56.1 54.9 55.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.1 0.3 1.2 5.5 0.4 1.2 0.8 16.4 0.8 1.8 1.5 2.0 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 2.0 5.1 5.1 2.8 4.9 5.3 5.8 9.9 4.5 7.6 6.5 6.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.7 22.7 23.5 68.0 21.4 22.3 54.6 72.3 53.7 57.8 56.4 57.2 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C D E D E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1373 1197 757 832
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.7 27.8 60.4 57.4
Approach LOS C C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 68.7 26.2 10.9 71.0 26.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 6 5.0 5.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 37.0 * 38 6.0 42.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 15.5 19.1 6.0 15.8 20.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 1.1 0.0 2.6 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Alcosta Blvd & Crow Canyon Road 10/12/2022
Ex+Proj PM Alternative 3 10:36 am 10/10/2022 Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 1126 307 202 835 0 321 0 365 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 1126 307 202 835 0 321 0 365 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 1173 320 217 898 0 353 0 401
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220202
Cap, veh/h 54 2814 874 382 3251 0 581 0 469
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.55 0.55 0.11 0.64 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 3456 5274 0 3456 0 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 1173 320 217 898 0 353 0 401
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1728 1702 0 1728 0 1395 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 12.0 10.2 5.4 7.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 12.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 12.0 10.2 5.4 7.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 12.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 54 2814 874 382 3251 0 581 0 469 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.42 0.37 0.57 0.28 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 117 2814 874 384 3251 0 1305 0 1054 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.1 11.8 11.4 38.0 7.2 0.0 34.7 0.0 36.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.7 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 4.1 3.4 2.3 2.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 9.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.7 12.2 12.5 39.2 7.4 0.0 35.1 0.0 38.1 LnGrp LOS D B B D A A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1525 1115 754
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 13.6 36.7
Approach LOS B B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 55.6 19.4 7.3 63.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 6 * 4.3 4.5 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 * 31 * 34 5.9 * 35
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 14.0 14.6 3.6 9.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.0 2.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2.1.j
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: F. Traffic Study dated August 23, 2023 (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
Community Risk Reduction Division
1500 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
phone: 925.838.6600 web: www.firedepartment.org
Friday, April 21, 2023
Hello Roy Wendel,
The Fire District has reviewed the Planning Application for the below noted address. Based upon the information provided, comments and requirements have been made as conditions of approval.

If during the course of the entitlement process the project changes, additional requirements may apply. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.

PROJECT: DP 2023-0001; MJ 2023-0001; TRP 2023-0002; ENVR 2023-0002 ADDRESS:

APPLICATION TITLE: Planning and Site Development Review PROJECT NUMBER: 996010
Roy Wendel
Fire Plans Examiner
San Ramon Valley Fire District
1500 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583
[email protected]
(925) 838-6687
Created with idtPlans Review
4/21/23
DP 2023-0001; MJ 2023-0001; TRP 2023-0002; ENVR 2023-0002 Page 1 of 3

2.1.k
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: G. Fire District Review Letter (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review (Hearing No.

Planning Comments
Open Issues: 9

PLANNING
General Issues

1. Access
Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:28 AM
Facilities, buildings, or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete, or other approved all-weather driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 74,000 pounds (34,473 kg) in accordance with Caltrans Design Standard HS- 20-44.

Exception: Driveways serving one or two single-family dwellings may be constructed of an alternate surface material, providing the imposed weight load design minimums are met and the grade does not exceed 10 percent.

2. Access
Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:28 AM
All roadways shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire District.

3. Access
Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:28 AM
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches (13’6”).

4. Access
Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:28 AM
Multiple-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads and shall meet the requirements of Section CFC D104.3.

5. Access
Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:28 AM
Fire apparatus access roads less than 28 feet wide shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane.

Fire apparatus access roads 28 feet wide or greater, but less than 36 feet wide, shall be posted on one side of the road as a fire lane.

6. Access
Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:28 AM
Based on a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, a fire apparatus access roadway shall be capable of providing a minimum standard turning radius of 25 feet (7620 mm) inside and 45 feet (13 716 mm) outside.

7. Fire Flow
Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:29 AM
This project is required to meet fire flow as defined in the CFC. Check with local water purveyor to ensure existing hydrants will meet required fire flow.

8. Fire Hydrants
Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:29 AM
Hydrant location shall be approved by the Fire District.

9. Fire Hydrants
Created with idtPlans Review
4/21/23
DP 2023-0001; MJ 2023-0001; TRP 2023-0002; ENVR 2023-0002 Page 2 of 3

2.1.k
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: G. Fire District Review Letter (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review (Hearing No.

Roy Wendel
4/21/23 11:29 AM
Fire Hydrants shall be wet barrel EBMUD standard steamer type (1) 4-1/2" and (1) 2- 1/2" outlet.

Created with idtPlans Review
4/21/23
DP 2023-0001; MJ 2023-0001; TRP 2023-0002; ENVR 2023-0002 Page 3 of 3

2.1.k
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: G. Fire District Review Letter (2023-124 : Iron Horse Village Dev. Project (DP 2023-0001) City Council Call for Review (Hearing No.