Santa Cruz City Council
January 25, 2022

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update California Register of Historic Resources Criteria
A cultural resource is considered “significant” if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Properties that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. Association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;

3. Embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

A property may be automatically listed in the CRHR if it is formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Properties that are formally determined eligible for the NRHP are those that are designated as such through one of the federal preservation programs administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (i.e., the National Register, Tax Certification, and Section 106 review of federal undertakings).

The CRHR interprets the integrity of a cultural resource based upon its physical authenticity. An historic cultural resource must retain its historic character or appearance and thus be recognizable as an historic resource. Integrity is evaluated by examining the subject’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the subject has retained these qualities, it may be said to have integrity. It is possible that a cultural resource may not retain sufficient integrity to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places yet still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. If a cultural resource retains the potential to convey significant historical/scientific data, it may be said to retain sufficient integrity for potential listing in the CRHR.

The property at 130 Center Street is not currently listed on the CRHR. In addition the structure does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in this register. The structure is not associated with significant events and thus it does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion 1. The structure is not associated with the lives of historically significant people, thus it does not appear to be eligible for inclusion under Criterion 2. The structure is an example of modern commercial architecture, however it is not a notable example, and suffers from significant modifications from its original form. Thus it does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion 3. The structure does not appear to have the potential to yield information important to history, and thus does not appear to be potentially eligible for listing under Criterion 4.

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information

29.61 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update National Register Criteria
The National Register of Historic Places was first established in 1966, with major revisions in 1976. The register is set forth in 36 CFR 60 which establishes the responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), standards for their staffs and review boards, and describes the statewide survey and planning process for historic preservation.

Within this regulation guidelines are set forth concerning the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.6). In addition, further regulations are found in 36 CFR 63-66, 800, and Bulletin 15 which define procedures for determination of eligibility, identification of historic properties, recovery, reporting, and protection procedures. The National Register of Historic Places was established to recognize resources associated with the accomplishments of all peoples who have contributed to the country’s history and heritage. Guidelines were designed for Federal and State agencies in nominating cultural resources to the National Register. These guidelines are based upon integrity and significance of the resource. Integrity applies to specific items such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in resources that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of the following criteria:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history; B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. that embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
D.that have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity is defined in Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1982) as:
the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period. If a property retains the physical characteristics it possessed in the past then it has the capacity to convey association with historical patterns or persons, architectural or engineering design and technology, or information about a culture or peoples.

There are also seven aspects of integrity which are used. These aspects are:

1. location 5. Workmanship

2. design 6. Feeling

3. setting 7. Association

4. materials
The structure at 130 Center Street is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition the structure does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in this register. The property is not associated with any known significant historical events, thus it does not appear to be eligible under Criterion A. The structure is not associated with historically significant persons, thus it does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion B.

Although an example of modern commercial architecture, it is not a notable example of this style and does not appear to be eligible for inclusion under Criterion C. The structure does not appear likely to yield important historical information, thus it does not appear eligible for inclusion under Criterion D.

In addition, the structure is somewhat lacking in historic integrity, having multiple additions since its original construction.

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information

29.62 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update Continued from B12:

Appraiser’s Office, County of Santa Cruz
2020 Appraiser’s records for 130 Center Street.

Assessor’s Office, County of Santa Cruz
2020 Record search of assessed value and associated taxes for 130 Center Street.

Calloway, S. and E. Cromley
1996 The Elements of Style: A Practical Encyclopedia of Interior Architectural Details from 1485 to the Present, Revised Edition. Simon & Schuster, New York.

Hoover, M. et al
1966 Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford California.

McAlester, V. and L. McAlester
1997 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Recorder’s Office, County of Santa Cruz
2020 Record search of recorded information for 130 Center Street.

US Department of the Interior
1990 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
US Department of the Interior
1982 Bulletin 15 – “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” Whiffen, M.
1992 American Architecture since 1780, Revised Edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information

29.63 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 1: Oblique view of the front façade of 130 Center Street Photo 2: A closer oblique view of the front façade.

29.64 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 3: View of the northern portion of the front façade.

Photo 4: View of the southern portion of the front façade.

29.65 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 5: Detail of angled decorative column at the northeast corner.

Photo 6: View along the cantilevered front awning.

29.66 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 7: View of cinderblock addition, south end of front façade.

Photo 8: View of the southwest corner of the main structure.

29.67 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 9: View of the front portion of the western façade.

Photo 10: View along the western façade.

29.68 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 11: View of the central portion of western façade.

Photo 12: View of junction of main structure and rear garages.

29.69 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 13: View of the rear garage bays.

Photo 14: View of the rear garage bay.

29.70 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 15: Oblique view of the rear façade.

Photo 16: View of garage bay on the eastern façade.

29.71 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 17: View along eastern façade showing informal additions.

Photo 18: View of the informal shed additions.

29.72 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 19: View of detached storage shed.

Photo 20: Interior view of garage area.

29.73 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 21: Another view of the garage area.

Photo 22: View of the showroom area.

29.74 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 23: View of the front office area.

Photo 24: Another view of the office.

29.75 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 25: View of the front façade of the 132 Center Street structure.

Photo 26: View of the front façade of the former showroom structure.

29.76 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 27: View of the northern façade.

Photo 28: View of the northwest corner of the structure.

29.77 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 29: Interior view of the former showroom structure.

Photo 30: View of the office area.

29.78 State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # ______________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _______________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ______________________________

*Recorded by Archaeological Resource Management Date 7/16/2020 Continuation x Update DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Photo 31: View of 130 Center Street in 1980.

Photo 32: View of 132 Center Street in 1982.

29.79 29.80

29.81 ARBORIST REPORTTree Survey & Preliminary Impact Assessment 130 Center Street APN: 007-023-26
Santa Cruz, CA
December 13, 2020

Prepared for:

Swenson
740 Front Street, Suite 315
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Prepared by:

ISA Certified Arborist WE0681
Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)

29.82 Table of Contents SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1 Background.................................................................................................................. 1 Assignment .................................................................................................................. 1 Limits of the Assignment.............................................................................................. 2 Purpose and use of the report...................................................................................... 2 Resources.................................................................................................................... 2 OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................................3-8 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................. 9 Species List.................................................................................................................. 9 Tree Evaluation and Recording Methods..................................................................... 9 Condition Rating ........................................................................................................ 10 Suitability for Preservation ......................................................................................... 10 Tree Protection Zone ................................................................................................. 11 Critical Root Zone ...................................................................................................... 11 Root Disturbance Distance………………………………………………………………………………………………12 Findings & Impacts to Subject Trees……………………….....………………………………………………...13-16 Tree Replacement………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....17 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………..18
RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………………………………...19

29.83 Attachments: Appendix A - G
Appendix A – Tree Assessment Chart
Appendix B – Criteria for Tree Assessment Chart
Appendix C - Tree Location Map
Appendix D – Bibliography
Appendix E – Glossary of Terms
Appendix F – Tree Protection Guidelines & Restrictions
 Protecting Trees During Construction
 Project Arborist Duties & Inspection Schedule
 Tree Protection Fencing
 Tree Protection Signs
 Monitoring
 Root Pruning
 Tree Work Standards & Qualifications
 City of Santa Cruz Protected Tree
Appendix G - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions

29.84 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 1

SUMMARY
This report provides the following information:

1. A summary of the health and structural condition of 6 trees.

2. A preliminary evaluation of anticipated construction impacts to the trees.

3. Recommendations for retention or removal of assessed trees based on their condition and anticipated construction impacts.
 The Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A is the condensed reference guide to inform all tree management decisions for the trees evaluated.
 Parcel improvements are proposed for the property at 130 Center Street, APN: 007-023- 26, Santa Cruz.
 Six trees within or near the parcel boundaries were inventoried.  Four trees are suitable for incorporation in the proposed project.  Two trees are not suitable for retention in the project due to poor condition, high construction impacts or a combination of both.
 Two trees are recommended for removal.
 If removals are permitted, replacement trees will be required.  This is a preliminary evaluation, once final plans are completed, tree protection specifications based on the final plans will be required.

Background
Plans will be submitted to the City of Santa Cruz, to construct a mixed-use complex at 130 Center Street. Mr. Jessie Bistrow, Development Project Manager Swenson has requested my services, to assess the condition of trees on or near the applicant’s property, and the construction impacts that may affect them. Further, to provide a report with my findings and recommendations to meet City of Santa Cruz planning requirements.

Assignment
Provide an arborist report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter, height and canopy spread), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings. Further, to review the preliminary development plans and assess the potential construction impacts.

To complete this assignment, the following services were performed:
 Tree Resource Evaluation: Inventory, evaluate and assign suitability for preservation ratings for subject trees.

29.85 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 2
Assignment continued:
 Plan Review: Reviewed provided plans including: Preliminary Site Plan Set, by Swenson Builder, dated 6/16/200 and Boundary & Topographic Survey, 130 Center Street, by Ifland Engineers, dated 8/2/2013.
 Construction Impact Assessment: Combine tree resource data with anticipated construction impacts, to provide recommendations for removal or retention of trees.  Mapping: Tree locations were plotted onto: Boundary & Topographic Survey, 130 Center Street, by Ifland Engineers, dated 8/2/2013, and a Tree Location Map was created.

Limits of the Assignment
The information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection on 12/7/2020.

The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in questions may not arise in the future.

Purpose and use of the report
The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by the developer, their agents, the City of Santa Cruz, as a reference for existing tree conditions and to help satisfy the City of Santa Cruz planning requirements.

Resources
All information within this report is based on site plans as of the date of this report. Resources are as follows:
 Preliminary Site Plan Set, by Swenson Builder, dated 6/16/200.  Boundary Topographic Survey 130 Center Street, by Ifland Engineers, dated 8/2//2013.
 Site Visit, Tree Inventory & Condition Evaluation at 130 Center Street, Santa Cruz, date 12/7/2020.
 City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code – Chapter 9.56 Preservation of Heritage Trees (applicable sections).

29.86 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 3

OBSERVATIONS
The proposed project at 130 Center Street is bordered on the north by commercial buildings, to the south by a hotel and to the east by an apartment complex, (Image #1).

Image #1- 130 Center Street. Project boundary outlined in red. The projects tree resources are towards the rear left of the property (5 trees circled blue) and one tree (circled green), at front right.

The commercial property currently has one main building. More than half of the property is a paved parking area.

Soquel Ave. Center Street

29.87 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 4
I inventoried 6 trees. Only one tree, a mature willow (Salix spp.) is located on the property (Image #2).

Image #2 – Trees T2, willow.

The tree is in poor condition. The tree was topped at 8 feet above grade. A cavity and significant amounts of deadwood and decay have developed at the location the tree was topped. Two mostly horizontal trunks with upright growing watersprout limbs have developed where the tree was topped, and branch attachment points are weak.

The remainder of the trees are on adjacent properties, and have canopies that overhang the subject property. The total tree canopy cover as a percentage of the property is less than five percent.

29.88 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 5
Four trees are growing in a planting strip in the apartment complex to the rear of the property.

These trees include three silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos), images #2 & #3.

Image #3 – Trees T3 & T4, silver dollar gum, as seen from the apartment complex adjacent to the subject property.

Silver dollar gum trees T3 and T4 are in fair condition. The branching structure of tree T4 overhangs the subject property by 15 feet. Tree T3 is half the size of the other two silver dollar gums and is not a “protected” size tree.

T4
T3

29.89 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 6
Image #4 – Tree T1, silver dollar gum, as seen from apartment complex.

Tree T1 is in fair condition. The foliar canopy of this tree overhangs the subject property by five feet.

29.90 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 7
One coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is growing in the same planting strip as silver dollar gums T1,T3 & T4 (Image #5).

Image #5– TreeT5, coast live oak. The oak is growing in a planting strip in the adjacent apartment complex.

The oak is in fair condition. The branching structure of the tree overhangs the subject property by 15 feet.

29.91 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 8
One tree, a mature coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) is growing in the right of way, between 130 Center Street and the subject property (Image #6).

Image #6 – Tree T6, coast redwood. The redwood is growing in a planting strip between the sidewalk on Center Street, and the subject property. Note lack of canopy on left side due to clearance pruning from adjacent high voltage lines.

The coast redwood is in fair condition. The tree is growing in a planting strip with limited soil volume compared to the mature size of the tree. Shallow surface roots are cracking and lifting the adjacent sidewalk. English ivy grows over its lower canopy. The upper canopy has been clearance pruned from the adjacent high voltage lines.

T46
T47
London Plane

29.92 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 9

DISCUSSION
Species List
TOTAL SUBJECT TREES: 6 Trees
Protected: 5
2 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos)
1 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
1 Willow (Salix spp.)
1 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)

Not Protected: 1
1 Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos)
Tree Evaluation and Recording Methods
Site evaluations were made on 12/7/2020. The inventory included trees on two parcels within the project limits. The health and structural condition of each tree was assessed and recorded.

Based on the trees health and structural condition, each trees suitability for preservation was rated and recorded.

The recorded data is included in the Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A, of this report. Tree numbers were plotted on the attached Tree Location Map sheet, T1. To correlate the data in the Tree Assessment Chart to the tree’s location on the site, refer to the Tree Location Map sheet T1 - Appendix C.

29.93 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 10
Condition Rating - Protected Trees
A trees condition is determined by an assessing both the health and structure, then combining the two factors to reach a condition rating. If the health rating and the structure rating differ, the lower rating becomes the default condition rating. Tree condition is rated as poor, fair or good.

The quantity of trees assigned for each category (good, fair or poor), is indicated below:

Tree Condition Rating
 Good - 0
 Fair - 5
 Poor - 1
Suitability for Preservation – Protected Trees
A trees suitability for preservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species characteristics and longevity using a scale of good, fair or poor. The quantity of trees assigned to each category (good, fair or poor), is listed below.

Suitability Rating
 Good - 0
 Fair – 5
 Poor - 1
Trees Recommended for Removal Due to Poor Condition/Suitability for Preservation – Protected Trees
“Protected Trees”
- Willow T2

29.94 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 11
Tree Protection Zone
The tree protection zone (TPZ), is a defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to minimize potential injury to designated trees during construction.

The size of the optimal TPZ can be determined by a formula based on 1) trunk diameter 2) species tolerance to construction impacts, and 3) tree age (Matheny, N. and Clark, J 1998). In some instances, tree drip line is used as the TPZ. Development constraints can also influence the final size of the tree protection zone.

Fencing is installed to delineate the (TPZ), and to protect tree roots, trunk, and scaffold branches from construction equipment. The fenced protection area may be smaller than the optimal or designated TPZ area in some circumstances. Tree protection may also involve the armoring of the tree trunk and/or scaffold limbs with barriers to prevent mechanical damage from construction equipment. See Tree Protection Guidelines & Restrictions – Appendix E.

Once the TPZ is delineated and fenced (prior to any site work, equipment and materials move in), construction activities are only to be permitted within the TPZ if allowed for and specified by the project arborist.

Where tree protection fencing cannot be used, or as an additional protection from heavy equipment, tree wrap may be used. Wooden slats at least one inch thick are to be bound securely, edge to edge, around the trunk. A single layer or more of orange plastic construction fencing is to be wrapped and secured around the outside of the wooden slats. Major scaffold limbs may require protection as determined by the City arborist or Project arborist. Straw wattle may also be used as a trunk wrap and secured with orange plastic fencing.

Data has been entered in the Tree Assessment Chart – Appendix A, which indicates the optimal Tree Protection Zone for each tree.

Critical Root Zone
Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is the area of soil around the trunk of a tree where roots are located that provide critical stability, uptake of water and nutrients required for a tree's survival. The CRZ is the minimum distance from the trunk that trenching that requires root cutting should occur and can be calculated as three to the five times the trunk Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). For example, if a tree is one foot in trunk diameter then the CRZ is three to five feet from the trunk location. We will often average this as four times the trunk diameter or 1ft. DBH = 4ft.

CRZ (Smiley, E.T., Fraedrich, B. and Hendrickson, N. 2007).

29.95 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 12
Root Disturbance Distance
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty, what distance from a tree a soil disturbance such as excavation for construction should be, to ensure it will not significantly affect tree stability or health. Or to what degree, (low, moderate or high), a tree might be impacted. There are simply too many variables involved that we cannot see or anticipate.

However, three times the D.B.H. (diameter at breast height), is a widely accepted minimum used in the industry for root disturbance, on one side of the trunk, and is supported by several research studies including (Smiley, Fraedich & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a project in order to estimate root loss due to construction activities. This distance is a guideline only and should be increased for trees with significant leans, decay or other structural problems.

The ISA, International Society of Arboriculture- Root Management (2017) publication recommends, “cutting roots at a distance greater than six times the trunk diameter (DBH) minimizes the likelihood of affecting both health and stability. This recommendation is given further direction by the companion publication, A.N.S.I. (American National Standard) A300 (Part 8)- 2013 Root Management, when roots are cut in a non-selective manner, i.e. in a straight line on one side of a tree. It says, if the cutting is “within six times the trunk diameter (DBH), mitigation shall be recommended”. Further, A.N.S.I. recommends the “minimum distance from the trunk for root cutting should be adjusted according to trunk diameter, species tolerance to root loss, tree age, health and site condition”.

In general, root cutting that occurs at a distance less than six times the diameter of a tree should be undertaken by hand digging and hand (or Sawzall), root pruning. These methods help mitigate root loss impacts.

29.96 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 13
Impacts to Subject Trees
Construction impact assessments are based on the Preliminary Site Plan Set, by Swenson Builder, dated 6/16/200, and my site visit on 12/7/2020.

Impacts to four trees will be moderate, and they can be retained. Impacts to two tree trees will be high and their removal will be required. Root loss impacts and/or canopy loss impacts will affect all the trees (Image #7).

Image #7 – Trees T1-T5. The red line between the building and trees is 5’ from the building and represents the limit of both root loss from excavation, and canopy loss from clearance pruning.

Property Line

29.97 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 14
Impacts to Subject Trees, Continued:

The building set back to the property line, where five of the trees are located, is 10 feet. Grading and excavation for the project will occur close the property line of the parcel, root losses to retained trees will be moderate, and can be tolerated. Canopy clearance pruning will be necessary to achieve a minimum clearance of 5 feet from the new building, to allow for construction activities.

Tree T2, willow has very poor structure, with significant amounts of deadwood and decay and is recommended for removal due to its poor condition. Further, since it is located less than four feet from excavation and clearance pruning limits, the tree will suffer extensive loss of both roots and foliar canopy and is recommended for removal.

Tree T4, silver dollar gum, has an unbalanced canopy with a weight bias to the west. Nearly all of it structural development including two 8-10-inch diameter scaffolds grow to the west overhanging the subject property,(Image #8).

Image #8 – Tree T4, silver dollar gum. Note bend in trunk towards fence. Nearly all the trees branching structure is over the subject property.

There is no lower branching structure close to the trunk where this tree could be pruned back to, for building clearance. More than 75 percent of its foliar canopy is over the subject property and would require removal. The health and structure of this tree will be negatively impacted by the clearance pruning required, to a significant degree, and removal is recommended.

29.98 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 15
Impacts to Subject Trees, Continued:

Trees T1 and T3 silver dollar gum will require minor canopy clearance pruning and can be retained.

Tree T5 coast live oak will require clearance pruning and has a significant amount of branching structure over the subject property. However, the tree has lower branching structure, that could be pruned back to, for building clearance. The tree can tolerate the amount of clearance pruning required and can be retained.

A loss of several hours of light depending on the season, will occur due to the height of the new building, and the shading affect it will create on trees T1,T3 and T5. However, the trees can tolerate this loss of sunlight and will not be significantly affected.

Tree T6, coast redwood will suffer moderate root loss due to excavation which will occur about 6 feet from the tree. The redwood can tolerate this root loss and can be retained (Image #9).

Image #9 – Tree T6, coast redwood. Red line indicates approximate limits of excavation.

Since utility tie-in locations have not been determined, possible impacts to tree T6 from utility lateral connections have not been assessed in this report.

29.99 Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 16
Impact Level
Impact level rates the degree a tree may be impacted by construction activity and is primarily determined by how close the construction procedures occur to the tree. Construction impacts are rated as low, moderate, high. The quantity of trees assigned for each category (low, moderate, high), is indicated below:

Impact Rating - Protected Trees
 Low - 0
 Moderate – 4
 High - 2
Trees Recommended for Removal Due to Anticipated Construction Impacts “Protected Trees”
T2 Willow (Also recommended for removal due to poor
condition)
T4 Silver Dollar Gum

29.100
Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 17
Tree Replacement
This is a preliminary project submittal. The final number of trees could vary depending on the final design. At present, two “protected” trees are recommended for removal.

Compensation for tree removal necessary to construct the project include:
 Preservation and protection of the retained trees during construction.  Pre-construction treatments for specific trees.
 Tree replacement planting.

For each protected tree removed, the City of Santa Cruz requires one 15-gallon replacement tree. A total of one replacement tree will be required. If the replacement tree is planted as a street tree, replacement requirements are specified below.

If tree replacement sites are limited within the design constraints of this project, applicants may elect to pay an in-lieu fee for offsite mitigation as described below.

Replacement trees should be planted away from structures and where they have enough room to develop. Do not install trees where overhead wire exist. The trees must receive supplemental irrigation equal to their establishment requirements for the first two years.

Replacement Trees for City of Santa Cruz Street Trees:
 For each tree removed, one replacement tree is required. In some situations, the city will provide 15-gallon trees of an approved street tree species.  If street trees are replaced, an approved cast iron grate must be installed (Neenah Foundry #8710) with each tree.
 Applicants may elect to pay an in-lieu fee to the tree trust fund of $150 for off- site mitigation. (Contribution to the Tree Trust Fund are used to purchase street trees, trees for projects, etc.)
 If the $250.00 refundable bond is placed and the tree(s) are replanted, permittee must contact the City Urban Forester, 831-420-5246 after 3 months of establishment to the $250.00 bond returned. Once the permit is issued there is a 10-day appeal period as required by ordinance before the permit becomes effective.  If no appeal is filed, the permit is valid for 45 days. Aggrieved parties wishing to appeal approval of a tree permit may submit a tree appeal application and $100 fee to the Parks and Recreation Department.
 If you choose to make a monetary donation to the City’s Tree Trust Fund, your donation is used to purchase street trees to be planted in the City of Santa Cruz.

29.101
Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 18

CONCLUSION
 The Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A is the condensed reference guide to inform all tree management decisions for the trees evaluated.
 Parcel improvements are proposed for the property at 130 Center Street, APN: 007-023- 26, Santa Cruz.
 Six trees within or near the parcel boundaries were inventoried.  Four trees are suitable for incorporation in the proposed project.  One “protected” tree, T2, willow, is in poor condition, will suffer high construction impacts and is not suitable for retention in the project.
 One “protected” tree T4, silver dollar gum, will require clearance pruning the will significantly impact the health and structure of the tree and it is not suitable for retention in the project.
 Two trees, T2, willow and T4, silver dollar gum, are recommended for removal.  If removals are permitted, replacement trees will be required.  This is a preliminary evaluation, once final plans are completed, tree protection specifications based on the final plans will be required.

29.102
Tree Survey and Preliminary Impacts 12/14/2020
130 Center Street Page 19

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Obtain all necessary permits prior to removing or significantly altering any trees on site.

2. Remove trees recommended for removal.

3. If the proposed building is built as shown in preliminary plans, have retained trees properly pruned by a licensed tree care company to achieve necessary clearance from the new building.

4. Tree protection specifications will be required once final plan sets are completed.

Respectfully submitted,

Kurt Fouts ISA Certified Arborist WE0681A
Kurt Fouts

29.103

Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 54
inches
a.g.

Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Diameter
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in feet
from trunk)
Construction
Impacts (Rating &
Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T1
silver dollar gum
(Eucalyptus
polyanthemos)
19" Yes 30'X15' Good Fair Fair 10'
Moderate (Root
loss, excavation,
canopy loss,
clearance pruning)
R.T. On adjacent property. In 3' wide planter strip. Canopy overhangs project limits by 5'. Co-dominant trunks at 7' above grade.

T2 willow
(Salix spp .) 16", 14" Yes 25'x30' Poor Poor Poor N/A High (Within 4' of grading limits) R.C.,R.I.

Boundary tree. Trunk straddles property line. Co-dominant trunks at 1' above grade. 10 degree trunk lean to east. Topped at 8' above grade. Cavity with significant amount of deadwood and decay at area of cut. Trunks grow horizontally with several poorly attached water sprout limbs. No canopy development on east half of tree.

Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment
130 Center Street, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Suitability for Preservation Ratings: Retention or Removal Code:

Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site
RT: Retain Tree
RI: Remove Due to Construction Impacts
Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures
I.M. Impacts Can Be Mitigated With Pre-Construction Treatments R.C. Remove Due to Condition
Protected Tree City of Santa Cruz Any tree 14 inches or greater in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade. Street trees regardless of size.

29.104
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter @
54 inches
a.g.

Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Diameter
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in feet
from trunk)
Construction
Impacts (Rating &
Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T3 silver dollar gum 8" No 20'X10' Fair Fair Fair 8'
Moderate (Root
loss, excavation,
canopy loss,
clearance pruning)
R.T. On adjacent property. In 3' wide planter strip.

T4 silver dollar gum 16" Yes 30'X15' Fair Fair-Poor Fair 10' High - (Root loss,
excavation, Canopy
Loss, clearance
pruning)
R.I.

On adjacent property. In 3' wide planter strip.
10 degree trunk lean to west. Co-dominant
trunks at 7' above grade. Two 8-10" diameter
scaffolds extend 15' into subject property at
10-20' above grade.

T5 coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia ) 16" Yes 30'X20' Fair Fair Fair 10'
Moderate (Root
loss, excavation,
canopy loss,
clearance pruning)
R.T.

On adjacent property. In 3' wide planter strip.

Co-dominant trunks at 6' above grade.

Unbalanced canopy with weight bias to west.

Two 8-10" diameter limbs extend 15' into
subject property at 10-20' above grade.

T6 coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) 36" Yes 50'x15' Fair Fair Fair 10' Moderate (Root loss, excavation) R.T.

Growing in 4' wide planter. Shallow surface
roots lifting and cracking concrete sidewalk.

Clearance pruned from overhead high voltage
wires, creating gap in canopy. English ivy
growing over lower canopy.

130 Center Street, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A

29.105
APPENDIX B – CRITERIA FOR TREE ASSESSMENT CHART
Following is an explanation of the data used in the tree evaluations. The data is incorporated in the Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A.

Trunk Diameter and Number of Trunks:

Trunk diameter as measured at 4.5 feet above grade. The number of trunks refers to a single or multiple trunked tree. Multiple trunks are measured at 4.5 feet above grade.

Health Ratings:

Good: A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease Fair: Moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, crown may be thinning and leaf color may be poor
Poor: Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk, most of foliage from epicormics
Structure Ratings:

Good: No significant structural defects. Growth habit and form typical of the species Fair: Moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care Poor: Extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

Suitability for Preservation Ratings:

Rating factors:

Tree Health: Healthy vigorous trees are more tolerant of construction impacts such as root loss, grading and soil compaction, then are less vigorous specimens.

Structural integrity: Preserved trees should be structurally sound and absent of defects or have defects that can be effectively reduced, especially near structures or high use areas.

Tree Age: Over mature trees have a reduced ability to tolerate construction impacts, generate new tissue and adjust to an altered environment. Young to maturing specimens are better able to respond to change.

29.106
Species response: There is a wide variation in the tolerance of individual tree species to construction impacts.

Rating Scale:

Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures.

Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment. Trees can be expected to decline or fail regardless of construction impacts or management . The species or individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site.

Construction Impacts:

Rating Scale:

High: Development elements proposed that are located within the Tree Protection Zone that would severely impact the health and /or stability of the tree. The tree impacts cannot be mitigated without design changes. The tree may be located within the building footprint.

Moderate: Development elements proposed that are located within the Tree Protection Zone that will impact the health and/or stability of the tree and can be mitigated with tree protection treatments.

Low: Development elements proposed that are located within or near the Tree Protection Zone that will have a minor impact on the health of the tree and can be mitigated with tree protection treatments.

None: Development elements will have no impact on the health and stability of the Tree.

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ):

Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, particularly during construction or development.

29.107
on Map
Tree Location Map
130 Center Street, Santa Cruz
Sheet T1
of 1 sheet
K.F.
12/14/2020
APN: 007-
023-26
.
.
.
.
.
.

T1 SILVER DOLLAR GUMDBH 19"T2 WILLOWDBH 16", 14"T3 SILVER DOLLAR GUMDBH 8"T4 SILVER DOLLAR GUMDBH 16"T5 COAST LIVE AOKDBH 16" T6 COAST REDWOODDBH 36"
x
Base map provided by Ifland Engineers, Santa Cruz
x

29.108

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Trees & Development – A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 1998 Costello, L.R., Watson, G., Smiley E.T. Root Management – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2017 ANSI Board of Standards Review. A.N.S.I. (American National Standard) A300 (Part 8)- 2013 Root Management
Harris, R.W., Clark, J.R. and Matheny, N.P. Arboriculture: Integrated management of landscape tree, shrubs, and vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. c.2004 Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Champaign, IL: Wadley Graphix Corp. c.1994
Smiley, E.T., Matheny, N., Lilly, S. Tree Risk Assessment – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2011 Costello, L., Perry, E., & Matheny,N, Abiotic Disorders of Landscape Plants: A Diagnostic Guide Oakland, CA:UC/ANR Publications (Publication 3420) c.2003.

29.109
Glossary of Terms
Basal rot: decay of the lower trunk, trunk flare, or buttress roots.

Canker: Localized diseased area on stems, roots and branches. Often sunken and discolored.

Critical Root Zone (CRZ): Area of soil around a tree where a minimum number of roots considered critical to the structural stability or health of the tree are located. CRZ determination is sometimes based on the drip line or a multiple of the DBH, but because root growth can be asymmetric due to site conditions, on-site investigation may be required.

Codominant branches/stems: Forked branches (or trunks), nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction and lacking a normal branch union, may have included bark.

Crown: Upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all branches and foliage.

Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree’s structural strength.

Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measurement of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade.

Frass: Fecal material and/or wood shavings produced by insects.

Included Bark Attachments (crotches): Branch/limb or limb /trunk, or codominant trunks originating at acute angles from each other. Bark remains between such crotches, preventing the development of axillary wood. The inherent weakness of such attachments increases with time, through the pressure of opposing growth and increasing weight of wood and foliage, often resulting in failure.

Live Crown Ratio (LCR): Ratio of the the crown length (live foliage), to total tree height.

Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that form the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree.

Suppressed: Trees that have been overtopped and occupy an understory position within a group or grove of trees. Suppressed trees often have poor structure.

Tree Protection Zones (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited of restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development.

Trunk flare: Transition zone from trunk to roots where the trunk expands into the buttress or structural roots.

This Glossary of Terms was adapted from the Glossary of Arboricultural Terms (ISA, 2015)

29.110
Appendix F - TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS Protecting Trees During Construction:
1) Before the start of site work, equipment or materials move in, clearing, excavation, construction, or other work on the site, every tree to be retained shall be securely fenced- off as delineated in approved plans. Such fences shall remain continuously in place for the duration of the work undertaken in connection with the development. 2) If the proposed development, including any site work, will encroach upon the tree protection zone, special measures shall be utilized, as approved by the project arborist, to allow the roots to obtain necessary oxygen, water, and nutrients. 3) Underground trenching shall avoid the major support and absorbing tree roots of protected trees. If avoidance is impractical, hand excavation undertaken under the supervision of the project arborist may be required. Trenches shall be consolidated to service as many units as possible. Boring/tunneling under roots should be considered as an alternative to trenching.
4) Concrete or asphalt paving shall not be placed over the root zones of protected trees, unless otherwise permitted by the project arborist.
5) Artificial irrigation shall not occur within the root zone of native oaks, unless deemed appropriate on a temporary basis by the project arborist to improve tree vigor or mitigate root loss.
6) Compaction of the soil within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. 7) Any excavation, cutting, or filling of the existing ground surface within the tree protection zone shall be minimized and subject to such conditions as the project arborist may impose. Retaining walls shall likewise be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize their impact on protected trees.
8) Burning or use of equipment with an open flame near or within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. All brush, earth, and other debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.
9) Oil, gas, chemicals, paints, cement, stucco or other substances that may be harmful to trees shall not be stored or dumped within the tree protection zone of any protected tree, or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the tree protection zone of a protected tree.
10) Construction materials shall not be stored within the tree protection zone of a protected tree.

29.111
Project Arborist Duties and Inspection Schedule:

The project arborist is the person(s) responsible for carrying out technical tree inspections, assessment of tree health, structure and risk, arborist report preparation, consultation with designers and municipal planners, specifying tree protection measures, monitoring, progress reports and final inspection.

A qualified project arborist (or firm) should be designated and assigned to facilitate and insure tree preservation practices. He/she/they should perform the following inspections:

Inspection of site: Prior to equipment and materials move in, site work, demolition, landscape construction and tree removal: The project arborist will meet with the general contractor, architect / engineer, and owner or their representative to review tree preservation measures, designate tree removals, delineate the location of tree protection fencing, specify equipment access routes and materials storage areas, review the existing condition of trees and provide any necessary recommendations.

Inspection of site: During excavation or any activities that could affect trees: Inspect site during any activity within the Tree Protection Zones of preserved trees and any recommendations implemented. Assess any changes in the health of trees since last inspection.

Final Inspection of Site: Inspection of site following completion of construction. Inspect for tree health and make any necessary recommendations.

Kurt Fouts shall be the Project Arborist for this project. All scheduled inspections shall include a brief Tree Monitoring report, documenting activities and provided to the City Arborist.

Tree Protection Fencing
Tree Protection fencing shall be installed prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials. Fence shall be comprised of six -foot chain link fence mounted on eight - foot tall, 1 and 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced on a minimum of 10-foot centers. Once established, the fence must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection.

A final inspection by the City Arborist at the end of the project will be required prior to removing any tree protection fencing.

Tree Protection Signs
All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited.

29.112
Monitoring
Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented.

The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted.

Root Pruning
Root pruning shall be supervised by the project arborist. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour.

Tree Work Standards and Qualifications
All tree work, removal, pruning, planting, shall be performed using industry standards of workmanship as established in the Best Management Practices of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the American National Standards Institute series, Safety Requirements in Arboriculture Operations ANSI Z133-2017, Contractor licensing and insurance coverage shall be verified.

During tree removal and clearance, sections of the Tree Protection Fencing may need to be temporarily dismantled to complete removal and pruning specifications. After each section is completed, the fencing is to be re-installed.

Trees to be removed shall be cut into smaller manageable pieces consistent with safe arboricultural practices, and carefully removed so as not to damage any surrounding trees or structures. The trees shall be cut down as close to grade as possible. Tree removal is to be performed by a qualified contractor with valid City Business/ State Licenses and General Liability and Workman’s Compensation insurance.

29.113
Development Site Tree Health Care Measures

RECOMMENDED TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM GROWING CONDITIONS, PHYSIOLOGICAL

INVIGORATION AND STAMINA, FOR PROTECTION AND RECOVERY FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACT.

Establish and maintain TPZ fencing, trunk and scaffold limb barriers for protection from mechanical damage, and other tree protection requirements as specified in the arborist report.

Project arborist to specify site-specific soil surface coverings (wood chip mulch or other) for prevention of soil compaction and loss of root aeration capacity.

Soil, water and drainage management is to follow the ISA BMP for "Managing Trees During Construction" and the ANSI Standard A300(Part 2)- 2011 Soil Management (a. Modification, b. 'Fertilization, c. Drainage.)
Fertilizer / soil amendment product(s) amounts and method of application to be specified by certified arborist.

29.114
City of Santa Cruz

9.56.040 HERITAGE TREE AND HERITAGE SHRUB DESIGNATION.

Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs, growing on public or private property within the city limits of the city of Santa Cruz which meet(s) the following criteria shall have the “heritage” designation:
(a) Any tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty-four inches (approximately fourteen inches in diameter or more), measured at fifty-four inches above existing grade; (b) Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs which have historical significance, including but not limited to those which were/are:
(1) Planted as a commemorative;
(2) Planted during a particularly significant historical era; or (3) Marking the spot of an historical event.
(c) Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs which have horticultural significance, including but not limited to those which are:
(1) Unusually beautiful or distinctive;
(2) Old (determined by comparing the age of the tree or shrub in question with other trees or shrubs of its species within the city);
(3) Distinctive specimen in size or structure for its species (determined by comparing the tree or shrub to average trees and shrubs of its species within the city); (4) A rare or unusual species for the Santa Cruz area (to be determined by the number of similar trees of the same species within the city);
(5) Providing a valuable habitat; or
(6) Identified by the city council as having significant arboricultural value to the citizens of the city.

29.115

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. Any legal description provided by the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as the quality of any title.

2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others.

3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services.

4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.

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

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

7. Sketches. Diagrams. Graphs. Photos. Etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.

8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.

9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.

10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection.

CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education. Knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees, Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.

Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.

29.116
130 Center Street Mixed-Use
Development
Transportation Impact Analysis
Prepared for:

Swenson
February 9, 2021
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95113
Hexagon Job Number: 20GB19
Phone: 408.971.6100
Document Name: 130 Center Street _2021-02-09.docx

29.117
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... iii

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1

2. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................9

3. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis..................................................................................................17

4. Existing Plus Project Conditions..................................................................................................19

5. Cumulative Conditions ................................................................................................................25

6. Other Transportation Issues........................................................................................................31

7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................36 Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Counts
Appendix B Level of Service Calculations
Appendix C Volume Spreadsheet
Appendix D VMT Analysis Sketch Tool Summary
List of Tables
Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ...............................................................................vi Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay................................... 7 Table 2 Existing Transit Services................................................................................................... 12 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .............................................................................. 16 Table 4 Project Trip Generation Estimates..................................................................................... 20 Table 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................... 24 Table 6 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service......................................................................... 28 Table 7 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service with Improvements .......................................... 29 Table 8 Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................. 32 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections ................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4 Existing Transit Services................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations............................................................................................. 14 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution Pattern ........................................................................................ 21 Figure 8 Net Project Trip Assignment.............................................................................................. 22 Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes................................................................................ 23 Figure 10 Cumulative Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 11 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 27

29.118
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | i i i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis for the proposed mixed-use development at 130 Center Street in Santa Cruz, California. The project proposes to replace the existing buildings: a Hertz rental car facility and an auto body shop, with a six-story mixed-use development comprised of 2,618 square feet of retail use on the ground floor and 233 residential studio apartments on the second through sixth floor. Parking would be provided via an on-site garage.

The study includes an evaluation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), intersection levels of service and also includes an evaluation of potential impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and a review of site access, on-site circulation, and parking demand.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
According to the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Study Guidelines for Development, retail development less than 50,000 square feet can be considered local-serving retail. The policy states that local-serving retail development would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. The project proposes 2,618 square feet of retail use on the ground floor, so it is considered local-serving and would not have a VMT impact.

For the residential portion of the project, the VMT impact is determined by comparing against the VMT thresholds of significance as established in the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Study Guidelines for Development. The Santa Cruz VMT sketch tool is used to estimate the project VMT. The threshold of significance for residential uses is used for the VMT analysis. The VMT threshold for residential development is 8.7 daily VMT per capita.

The project VMT estimated by the sketch tool is 4.2 per capita. The project VMT would not exceed the threshold of 8.7 VMT per capita. The project is also located within ½ mile of a major transit stop.

Therefore, the project’s VMT impact is considered less than significant.

Project Trip Estimates
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). The rates published for Multifamily Housing – MidRise (Land Use 221) and Shopping Center (Land Use 820) were used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed residential units and retail square footage, respectively. Based on these rates, the proposed project would generate 1,367 daily trips with 86 trips during the AM peak hour and 113 trips during the PM peak hour.

29.119
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | iv
Trips generated by the existing uses on the site can be credited against the proposed mixed-use development. The existing businesses’ trip generation estimates are based on peak-hour driveway counts conducted in August 2020. Based on the driveway counts, it is estimated that the existing businesses are generating 255 daily trips with 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 33 trips during the PM peak hour. The daily trips were estimated based on the average of both peak hour trips multiplied by a factor of 10.

After accounting for the trips generated by the existing businesses, the proposed mixed-use project is estimated to generate 1,112 new daily trips with a net increase of 68 trips in the AM peak hour and a net increase of 80 trips in the PM peak hour.

Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
The intersection level of service analysis results show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions.

It should be noted that, at some study intersections, the average delay under project conditions is shown to be better than under no-project conditions. This occurs because the project would result in a reduction in traffic for several of the intersection movements.

Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that the following intersections would operate under unacceptable level of service conditions during the PM peak hour, both with and without the project (see Table 6):
• Front Street & Laurel Street
• Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
• Front Street & Soquel Avenue
The project would add traffic to these deficient intersections.

Planned Improvements
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR has identified several roadway improvements for which the costs would be covered by anticipated future development projects. The 130 Front Street’s fair share payment was calculated based on its cumulative traffic added to the study intersections.

Front Street and Laurel Street
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by converting the westbound rightturn lane into a shared through-right lane. The west leg would be widened to provide a receiving lane between Pacific Avenue and Front Street, relocating sidewalk, utilities, and landscaping. A right-turn overlap phase would be provided for the northbound and southbound approaches.

The cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be $599,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

29.120
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | v
Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by the construction of a southbound left-turn lane and removing the existing landscaped median.

The engineering cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be approximately $313,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Front Street and Soquel Avenue
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by adding a second westbound leftturn lane. The centerline median would be shifted south, and the east leg would be reduced to one through lane between Front Street and River Street. The westbound shared through-left lane would be converted into a through lane. The signal timing and phasing would be optimized.

The cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be $599,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Front Street Improvements
The 130 Center Street project would add traffic to Front Street. Santa Cruz plans to improve the operation of Front Street by implementing a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). The TWLTL would extend from Soquel Avenue to Laurel Street. With the implementation of this continuous two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking on both sides of the street would be eliminated. Continuous Class bike lanes and Class II buffered bike lanes would be provided with the restriping of Front Street.

The cost to construct these improvements is estimated to be $169,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study.

The project’s fair share is estimated to be 21.44%. This is based on the 80 PM peak hour project trips divided by the Downtown Plan Amendments’ 293 PM peak hour net new trips plus the project’s PM peak hour net new trips (80/373 = 21.44%).

Other Transportation Issues
Hexagon identified the following recommendations resulting from the review of site access, circulation, and parking.
• Vehicles would not be able to turn sharply enough to access the at-grade parking from the driveway. Therefore, Hexagon recommends that the entrance to the parking garage be relocated or provide a second driveway that aligns with the at-grade parking area. • The project would retain the existing driveway along Center Street. However, the site plan may require a second driveway that aligns with the entrance to the parking garage. Therefore, the project could have a detrimental impact on pedestrian circulation by having two driveways where currently there is only one driveway.
• Long-term bicycle parking should be relocated to the ground floor.

29.121
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | vi
Table ES 1
Intersection Level of Service Summary
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.

Peak Count Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
# Intersection Control Hour Date (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1 Signal AM 11/20/19 17.1 B 17.0 B -0.1 - - - - - -
PM 11/20/19 17.7 B 18.3 B 0.6 35.0 D 37.4 D - -
2 Signal AM 11/19/19 32.1 C 32.0 C -0.1 - - - - - -
PM 11/19/19 36.4 D 37.7 D 1.3 49.3 D 50.5 D - -
3 Signal AM 11/19/19 16.8 B 16.8 B 0.0 - - - - - -
PM 11/19/19 18.9 B 19.1 B 0.2 39.7 D 40.9 D - -
4 Signal AM 05/14/19 29.2 C 29.6 C 0.4 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 31.1 C 31.6 C 0.5 63.0 E 63.7 E 47.1 D
5 Roundabout AM 8/18/2020* 5.7 A 5.8 A 0.1 - - - - - -
PM 8/18/2020* 7.4 A 7.6 A 0.2 11.7 B 12.3 B - -
6 Signal AM 11/19/19 16.6 B 16.7 B 0.1 - - - - - -
PM 11/19/19 19.4 B 19.5 B 0.1 59.0 E 59.3 E 45.1 D
7 Signal AM 05/14/19 21.1 C 21.1 C 0.0 - - - - - -
PM 05/14/19 25.9 C 26.0 C 0.1 57.0 E 58.7 E 53.8 D
Notes:

Bold indicates substandard level of service.
* The 8/18/20 count at Center Street/West Cliff Drive/Pacific Avenue was factored to pre-COVID conditions. \ Center Street/West Cliff Drive & Pacific
Avenue
Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
Cumulative no Project
Conditions
Front Street & Soquel Avenue
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
with Improvements
Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions
California Street & Laurel Street
Front Street & Laurel Street
Existing plus Project
Incr. in
Avg.

Delay
Existing
Center Street & Laurel Street
Chestnut Street & Laurel Street

29.122
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis for the proposed mixed-use development at 130 Center Street in Santa Cruz, California (see Figure 1). The project proposes to replace the existing buildings, a Hertz rental car facility and an auto body shop, with a six-story mixed-use development comprised of 2,618 square feet of retail use on the ground floor and 233 residential studio apartments on the second through sixth floor. Parking would be provided via an on-site garage (see Figure 2).

Scope of Study
The purpose of the traffic analysis is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Santa Cruz. The traffic analysis includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions and determines the adverse effects of the proposed mixed-use development on key intersections in the vicinity of the site.

The key intersections are identified below.

1. Center Street and Laurel Street

2. Chestnut Street and Laurel Street

3. California Street and Laurel Street

4. Front Street and Laurel Street

5. Center Street/West Cliff Drive and Pacific Avenue

6. Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street

7. Front Street and Soquel Avenue
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Locally, the AM peak hour of traffic is between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday.

29.123
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
1 4
7 6
5 2
3 W Cliff Dr W Cliff Dr
Pacific Ave
W Cliff Dr
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
130 Center Street
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections

29.124
130 Center Street
Figure 2
Site Plan
83 83
83 5$0383

*$5$*(

$

$
67$,5
67$,5
(/(9
6725$*(
6725$*( 6725$*(
(/(9
67$,5






       


 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(/(&75,&5220
6725$*(










      
  
     
    




 









 

      
      


67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

83 '1
83 '1
'1

§

 
0$,/
  

5$03'1
*$5$*(

$
6725$*(
75$6+
%,.(&$)(
(;7(1'('

/2%%< 0$,/
(;7(1'(' (;7(1'(' (;7(1'(' (;7(1'(' (;7(1'(' (;7(1'(' (;7(1'(' 75$16)250(5
67$,5
67$,5
(/(9
67$,5
(/(9
67$,5
5(7$,/
5(7$,/


3973$7,2 3973$7,2 3973$7,2 3973$7,2 3973$7,2 3973$7,2 0,&52

6725$*(
/($6,1*


       


 
 
 
 
 
 
 




    
    


  



    



  


 







 






 


(9

)8785(*5($6(
,17(5&(3725$6
1(('('






67$//6

/(9(//,)76

67$//6

/(9(//,)76

5RRP/HJHQG
(/(&75,&5220
*$5$*(
67$,5
67$,5
67$,5
6725$*(
5RRP/HJHQG
%,.(&$)(
(;7(1'('
*$5$*(
/($6,1*
/2%%<0$,/
0,&52
35,9$7(23(163$&(
3973$7,2
5(7$,/
67$,5
67$,5
67$,5
6725$*(
75$16)250(5
75$6+
Basement Floor Plan First Floor Plan

29.125
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 4
Transportation Policies
Historically, transportation analysis has utilized delay and congestion on the roadway system as the primary metric for the identification of traffic impacts and potential roadway improvements to relieve traffic congestion that may result due to proposed/planned growth. However, the State of California has recognized the limitations of measuring and mitigating only vehicle delay at intersections and in 2013 passed Senate Bill (SB) 743, which requires jurisdictions to stop using congestion and delay metrics, such as Level of Service (LOS), as the measurement for CEQA transportation analysis. With the adoption of SB 743 legislation, public agencies will soon be required to base the determination of transportation impacts on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than level of service.

In adherence to SB 743, the City of Santa Cruz has adopted a new Transportation Analysis Policy, Resolution No. NS-29,676 on June 9, 2020. This resolution establishes the thresholds for transportation impacts under the CEQA based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of levels of service (LOS). The intent of this change is to shift the focus of transportation analysis under CEQA from vehicle delay and roadway auto capacity to a reduction in vehicle emissions, and the creation of robust multimodal networks that support integrated land uses. The new transportation policy aligns with the currently adopted General Plan, bringing together office, residential, and supporting service land uses to internalize trips and reduce VMT. All new development projects are required to analyze transportation impacts using the VMT metric and conform to Resolution No NS-29,676.

CEQA Transportation Analysis Scope
VMT Analysis
The City of Santa Cruz’s Transportation Analysis Policy establishes procedures for determining project impacts on VMT based on project description, characteristics, and/or location. The City of Santa Cruz defines VMT as the total miles of travel by personal motorized vehicles a project is expected to generate in a day. VMT is calculated for residential, office, and industrial projects using the OriginDestination VMT method, which measures the full distance of personal motorized vehicle-trips with one end within the project. A project’s VMT is compared to established thresholds of significance based on the project location and type of development. When assessing a residential project, the project’s VMT is divided by the number of residents expected to occupy the project to determine the VMT per capita.

When assessing an office or industrial project, the project’s VMT is divided by the number of employees.

Typically, development projects that are farther from other, complementary land uses (such as a business park far from housing) and in areas without transit or active transportation infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.) generate more driving than development near complementary land uses with more robust transportation options. Therefore, developments located in a central business district with high density and diversity of complementary land uses and frequent transit services are expected to internalize trips and generate shorter and fewer vehicle trips than developments located in a suburban area with low density of residential developments and no transit serve in the project vicinity.

VMT Evaluation Tool
To determine whether a project would result in CEQA transportation impacts related to VMT, the City has developed a VMT Evaluation Tool (VMT sketch tool) to streamline the analysis for development projects.

29.126
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 5
The VMT Evaluation tool identifies the existing average VMT per capita and VMT per employee for the project area. Based on the project location, type of development, project description, and proposed trip reduction measures, the VMT Evaluation tool calculates the project VMT. Projects located in areas where the existing VMT is above the established threshold are referred to as being in “high-VMT areas”. Projects in high-VMT areas are required to include a set of VMT reduction measures that would reduce the project VMT to the extent possible.

The thresholds of significance for development projects, as established in the Transportation Analysis Policy, are based on the existing countywide average VMT level for residential uses and the existing countywide average VMT level for employment uses.

The study also includes an evaluation of potential impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and a review of site access, on-site circulation, and parking demand.

Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at study intersections were based on previous traffic counts collected between May 2019 and August 2020. Note that the traffic counts are pre-COVID counts or adjusted to pre-COVID counts. The Center Street/West Cliff Drive/Pacific Avenue intersection traffic counts are adjusted to pre-COVID counts.
• Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic counts the additional traffic generated by the project. • Cumulative Conditions (PM Only). Cumulative traffic volumes were based on the buildout of the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan. A list of peak-hour traffic volumes in the vicinity was provided by the City of Santa Cruz. The City General Plan was only developed for the PM peak hour, which represents a worst-case analysis. The PM peak hour volumes are typically higher than the AM hour.
• Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (PM Only). Cumulative plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the project traffic to the volumes generated by buildout of the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan.

Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above and the traffic impacts of the project. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards.

Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, field observations, and the City of Santa Cruz. The following data were collected from these sources:
• Intersection traffic volumes,
• Intersection lane configurations, and
• Intersection signal timing and phasing.

29.127
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 6
Analysis Methodologies
Signalized Intersection Level of Service
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.

The City of Santa Cruz evaluates intersection levels of service using the Synchro software, which is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method for signalized intersections. The HCM 6th Edition method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. This average delay can then be correlated to a level of service. The City of Santa Cruz level of service standard for signalized study intersections is LOS D or better. Table 1 presents the level of service definitions for signalized intersections.

29.128
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 7
Table 1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay Vehicle Queuing
The analysis of intersection levels of service was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements. The intersection queuing analysis was conducted using SYNCHRO traffic analysis software in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. SYNCHRO provides total movement delay and 95th-percentile queues for each movement.

Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(sec.)
A 10.0 or less
B+ 10.1 to 12.0
B 12.1 to 18.0
B- 18.1 to 20.0
C+ 20.1 to 23.0
C 23.1 to 32.0
C- 32.1 to 35.0
D+ 35.1 to 39.0
D 39.1 to 51.0
D- 51.1 to 55.0
E+ 55.1 to 60.0
E 60.1 to 75.0
E- 75.1 to 80.0
F greater than 80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16.

The level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.

Level of
Service
Description
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most Vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

Higher delays may result for fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. 29.129
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 8
Transportation Effect Criteria
Transportation Effect criteria are used to establish what constitutes an adverse effect. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine adverse effects on studied intersections are based on City of Santa Cruz Level of Service standards. Impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit services were evaluated based on the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines (July 2020) and professional judgment.

City of Santa Cruz Intersections
According to City of Santa Cruz level of service standard, a development is said to create an adverse effect on traffic conditions at a studied intersection if:

1. The level of service at the intersection drops below its respective level of service standard (LOS D or better) when project traffic is added and would be more than 3% over the existing total volume, or

2. The project traffic together with General Plan traffic would result in a drop below the level of service standard (LOS D). (This is defined as a cumulatively considerable effect).

An adverse effect at a studied intersection is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would adequately avoid or minimize an adverse effect to a less-than-significant level.

Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit services, and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 discusses vehicle mile traveled (VMT).

Chapter 4 describes the methods used to estimate project traffic, intersection operations under existing plus project conditions, and the project’s impacts on the existing transportation system. Chapter 5 presents the intersection operations under cumulative conditions. Chapter 6 presents the project’s impacts on transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, site access and on-site circulation, Front Street improvements, and parking. Chapter 7 includes a summary of project impacts and recommended improvements.

29.130
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 9

2. Existing Conditions
This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Roadway Network
Local roadways in the vicinity of the site include Front Street, Soquel Avenue, Laurel Street, Pacific Avenue, Center Street, Chestnut Street, California Street, and West Cliff Drive. These roadways are described below.

Front Street is a two- to four-lane street that extends from Mission Street/Water Street in the north to Pacific Avenue to the south. Front Street is oriented in a north-south direction in the project vicinity.

Front Street has bike lanes and continuous sidewalks present on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on the east side of the street. The prima facie speed limit on Front Street is 25 mph.

Soquel Avenue is a two- to four-lane street that extends from Pacific Avenue in the west to Gross Road from to the east. Soquel Avenue is oriented in a west-east direction in the project vicinity. Soquel Avenue has bike lanes and continuous sidewalks present on both sides of the street. On-street parking is prohibited along most of the roadway within the project vicinity. Soquel Avenue has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.

Laurel Street is a mostly two-lane street that extends from Escalona Drive in the west to Broadway to the east. Laurel Street is oriented in the west-east direction in the project vicinity. Within the project vicinity, there are bike lanes from California Street to Broadway on both sides of the street. Laurel Street has sidewalks on both sides of the street from Cabrillo Highway to Broadway, but no sidewalks from Escalona Drive to Kings Street. On-street parking is prohibited within the project vicinity, and the posted speed limit of 25 mph.

Pacific Avenue is a two-lane street from Beach Street to Cathcart Street. North of Cathcart Street, Pacific Street becomes a one-way street. Within the project vicinity, there are bike lanes throughout the segment and sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 15 mph within the project vicinity.

Center Street is a two-lane street that extends from Mission Street in the north to Pacific Avenue to the south. Center Street is oriented in the north-south direction in the project vicinity. Within the project vicinity, Center Street has bike lanes from Laurel Street to Pacific Avenue. Center Street has sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street, and the prima facie speed limit is 25 mph.

29.131
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 10
Chestnut Street is a north-south two-lane street that extends from Mission Street in the north to its end near Chestnut Park in the south. Chestnut Street has bike lanes from Mission Street to Laurel Street.

Within the vicinity of the project, Chestnut Street has sidewalks on both sides and has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street.

California Street is a north-south two-lane street that extends from Walnut Avenue in the north to Bay Street in the south. California Street has bike lanes from Laurel Street to Bay Street and is a designated bike route from Walnut Avenue to Laurel Street. Within the project vicinity, California Street has sidewalks on both sides of the street and has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street.

West Cliff Drive is a two-lane street that extends from Pacific Avenue in the north to its end near Natural Bridges State Beach. However, within the project vicinity, West Cliff Drive is a one-way street heading south. Within the vicinity of the project, West Cliff Drive is oriented in a north-south direction.

West Cliff Drive has sidewalks on the east side of the street and bike lanes on both sides of the street.

West Cliff Drive has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, and parking is prohibited along the one-way segment.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities within the study area consist of sidewalks and signalized crossings. Sidewalks are found on both sides of the streets in the study area. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are located at all the study intersections.

Bicycle facilities in the study area include bike lanes and a bike route (see Figure 3). Bike lanes (Class II) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are existing streets that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Within the vicinity of the project site, Class II bike lanes are present along the following roadway segments.
• Front Street, along the entire length of the street
• Soquel Avenue, between Pacific Avenue and Ocean Street • Laurel Street, between California Street and Broadway • Center Street, between Laurel Street and Pacific Avenue • Pacific Avenue, between Front Street and Viaduct Lane • West Cliff Drive, between Center Street and Bay Street • Chestnut Street, between Mission Street and Laurel Street Class III bike routes are present along California Street, between Walnut Avenue and Laurel Street

29.132
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
= Site Location
LEGEND
= Existing Class II Bike Lanes
= Existing Class III Bike Routes
= Existing Class I Bike Paths
Broadway
Ocean st Ocean st
San Lorenzo Blvd San Lorenzo Blvd
Bay St
King St
Pacific Ave
Broadway
Ocean St
San Lorenzo Blvd
Bay St
King St
130 Center Street
Figure 3
Existing Bicycle Facilities

29.133
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 12
Transit Services
Existing transit services near the project site are provided by the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (See Figure 4). Bus routes that run through the study area are listed in Table 2, including their route description, weekday hours of operation, and commute hour headways. The nearest stop is located on Pacific Avenue, approximately 800 feet east of the site and provides access to Routes 3, 19, and 20.

Additional bus stops for the other bus routes are located at the Center Street/Laurel Street intersection, approximately 1,200 feet north of the site and provide access to Routes 16 and 42.

Table 2
Existing Transit Services
Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations (see Figure 5).

Existing peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from previous turning-movement counts conducted between May 2019 and August 2020 (see Figure 6). Note that the traffic counts collected are preCOVID counts or adjusted to pre-COVID counts. The Center Street/West Cliff Drive/Pacific Avenue intersection traffic counts are adjusted to pre-COVID counts. The adjusted pre-COVID counts were obtained by determining a factor by comparing a nearby intersection’s (Center Street/Laurel Street) preCOVID and COVID counts. The factor was then applied to COVID counts at Center Street/West Cliff Drive/Pacific Avenue. New and previous intersection turning-movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A.

Bus Route Route Description
Closest Stop & Distance to
Project Site
Weekday Hours
of Operation1 Headway1
Local Bus 3 Mission/Seymour Center/Beach Center Street/Pacific Avenue,

0.15 mi 9:50 am - 5:50 pm 120 min
Local 16 UCSC via Laurel East Center Street/Laurel Street, 0.23 mi 8:10 am - 11:07 pm 60 min
Local 19 UCSC via Lower Bay Center Street/Pacific Avenue,

0.15 mi 10:00 am - 7:00 pm 60 min
Local 20 UCSC via Westside Center Street/Pacific Avenue,

0.15 mi 11:20 am - 8:20 pm 60 min
Local 42 Davenport/Bonny Doon Center Street/Laurel Street, 0.23 mi 8:30 am & 4:30 pm -
Notes:

1. Approximate weekday operation hours and headways during peak commute periods in the project area, as of August 2020.

29.134
Santa Cruz
Metro Center
3, 16, 19, 20, 42
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
Pacific Ave
= Site Location
LEGEND
= Santa Cruz Metro Route 19
= Santa Cruz Metro Route 20
= Santa Cruz Metro Route 3
= Santa Cruz Metro Route 16
= Santa Cruz Metro Route 42
130 Center Street
Figure 4
Existing Transit Services

29.135
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
CenterStChestnutSt
Laurel
St
California St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Front St
Center
St
Pacific
Ave
PacificAve
Pacific
West
Cliff
Dr
Ave
Laurel
St
Soquel
Ave
FrontSt
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Santa Cruz
1 4
7 6
5 2
3 Pacific Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
130 Center Street
Figure 5
Existing Lane Configurations

29.136
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
1 4
7 6
5 2
3 Pacific Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
130 Center Street
Figure 6
Existing Traffic Volumes Center St
Pacific
Ave
Pacific
West
Cliff
Dr
CenterStChestnutSt
Ave
Laurel
St
California St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Front St
PacificAve
Laurel
St
Soquel
Ave
FrontSt
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 102(96)
211(295)
1(0)
158(143)
356(351)
243(424)
58(65)
34(33)66(39)34(45)
41(78)15(52)105(111)
20(37)
409(448)
93(76)
91(94)
310(545)
17(26)
43(37)64(76)15(27)
19(44)47(112)16(58)
35(64)
485(464)
40(46)
16(36)
348(549)
38(47)
35(33)36(73)39(44)
22(30)19(40)18(57)
50(40)
465(459)
34(50)
16(45)
373(582)
12(24)
5(11)
134(165)198(244)
34(143)163(308)33(95)
279(217)
532(414)
91(108)
56(78)
356(517)
13(18)
9(15)
230(285)
66(124)
20(35)133(279)18(101)
238(370)
78(107)
50(49)
25(53)
57(160)
23(64)
13(49)
104(131)380(413)
102(157)46(113)18(27)
358(453)
6(3)
26(21)

29.137
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 16
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
The intersection level of service analysis results show that all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours (see Table 3). The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.

Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Avg.

Peak Count Delay
# Intersection Control Hour Date (sec) LOS
1 Signal AM 11/20/19 17.1 B
PM 11/20/19 17.7 B
2 Signal AM 11/19/19 32.1 C
PM 11/19/19 36.4 D
3 Signal AM 11/19/19 16.8 B
PM 11/19/19 18.9 B
4 Signal AM 05/14/19 29.2 C
PM 05/14/19 31.1 C
5 Roundabout AM 8/18/2020* 5.7 A
PM 8/18/2020* 7.4 A
6 Signal AM 11/19/19 16.6 B
PM 11/19/19 19.4 B
7 Signal AM 05/14/19 21.1 C
PM 05/14/19 25.9 C
Notes:
* The 8/18/20 count at Center Street/West Cliff Drive/Pacific Avenue was factored to preCOVID conditions.

Front Street & Laurel Street
Center Street/West Cliff Drive &
Pacific Avenue
Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
Front Street & Soquel Avenue
Center Street & Laurel Street
Existing
California Street & Laurel Street
Chestnut Street & Laurel Street

29.138
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 17

3. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
This chapter describes the CEQA transportation analysis, including the VMT analysis methodology and significance criteria, and potential project impacts on VMT.

Vehicles Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package, including the Guidelines section implementing Senate Bill 743. The guidelines state that level of service will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA and that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impact.

Cities have until July 2020 to adopt the new procedures. In accordance with new CEQA guidelines, the City has transitioned from intersection LOS to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for CEQA transportation analysis.

A project’s VMT is compared to the appropriate thresholds of significance based on the project location and type of development. When assessing a residential project, the project’s VMT is divided by the number of residents expected to occupy the project to determine the VMT per capita. When assessing a retail project, the project’s total VMT, as opposed to a per-capita or per-employee VMT metric, is measured. The total VMT for the region with and without the project is calculated. The difference between the two scenarios is the net change in total VMT that is attributable to the project.

To determine whether a project would result in CEQA transportation impacts related to VMT, the City has established thresholds for residential, office, and retail projects.

The established thresholds are as follows:

Residential projects
A project may indicate a significant transportation impact if the anticipated VMT exceeds 85% of existing County-wide average VMT per capita. The VMT threshold is 8.7 VMT per capita, which is a 15% reduction from the existing County-wide average VMT level.

Retail projects
A net increase in the total VMT rate for a specific use may indicate a significant transportation impact. It is assumed that local serving retail projects tend to shorten trips and therefore reduce VMT.

29.139
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 18
Screening for Non-Significant Transportaton Impact
The City of Santa Cruz Transportation Study Guidelines for Development includes screening criteria for projects that are expected to result in less-than-significant VMT impacts. Projects, or portions of the project, that meet the screening criteria do not require a CEQA transportation analysis.

Projects will have a non-significant CEQA transportation impact based on their project location and characteristics. These include:
• Small projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day; • Projects near high quality transit: within a ½ mile of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor with a combined service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during the AM and PM peak hours;
• Local-serving retail;
• Local essential service;
• Map based screening; and
• Redevelopment projects that do not result in a net increase in VMT Project-level VMT Analysis
According to the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Study Guidelines for Development, retail development less than 50,000 square feet can be considered local-serving retail. The policy states that local-serving retail development would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. The project proposes 2,618 square feet of retail use on the ground floor, so it is considered local-serving and would not have a VMT impact.

For the residential portion of the project, the VMT impact is determined by comparing against the VMT thresholds of significance as established in the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Study Guidelines for Development. The Santa Cruz VMT sketch tool is used to estimate the project VMT. The threshold of significance for residential uses is used for the VMT analysis. The VMT threshold for residential development is 8.7 daily VMT per capita.

The project VMT estimated by the sketch tool is 4.2 per capita. The project VMT would not exceed the threshold of 8.7 VMT per capita. The project is also located within ½ mile of a major transit stop.

Therefore, the project’s VMT impact is considered less than significant. Appendix D presents the sketch tool summary report for the project.

29.140
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 19

4. Existing Plus Project Conditions
This chapter describes existing traffic conditions with the addition of the traffic that would be generated by the proposed project.

Roadway Network
The roadway network under existing plus project conditions would be the same as the existing roadway network because the project would not alter the existing intersection lane configurations.

Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.

Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). The rates published for Multifamily Housing – MidRise (Land Use 221) and Shopping Center (Land Use 820) were used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed residential units and retail square footage, respectively. Multifamily Housing - Mid-Rise is defined as apartments, townhouses, condominiums with at least three other dwelling units that have between 3 and 10 floors. Shopping Center is defined as a group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. The proposed project has 233 units within the sixstory building. Therefore, the Multifamily Housing – Mid-Rise rates were used. Shopping Center is typically used for retail development where the future tenants are not known. Shopping Center is a good general purpose category because shopping centers typically include a variety of store types, including restaurants. Based on these rates, the proposed project would generate 1,367 daily trips with 86 trips during the AM peak hour and 113 trips during the PM peak hour (see Table 4).

Trip Adjustments and Reductions
Trips generated by the existing uses on the site can be credited against the proposed mixed-use development. The existing businesses’ trip generation estimates are based on peak-hour driveway

29.141
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 20
counts conducted in August 2020. Based on the driveway counts, it is estimated that the existing businesses are generating 255 daily trips with 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 33 trips during the PM peak hour. The daily trips were estimated based on the average of both peak hour trips multiplied by a factor of 10.

After accounting for the trips generated by the existing businesses, the proposed mixed-use project is estimated to generate 1,112 new daily trips with a net increase of 68 trips in the AM peak hour and a net increase of 80 trips in the PM peak hour.

Table 4
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the proposed development was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses (see Figure 7).

The peak-hour trips generated by the existing and proposed uses were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure, the roadway network connections, and the locations of project driveways (see Figure 8). The trips generated by the existing uses were subtracted from the roadway network prior to assigning project trips. It is assumed that all residential trips would enter and exit the project site via a driveway on Center Street.

Intersection Traffic Volumes
Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 9).

Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses
Retail1 2.62 ksf 37.75 99 0.94 1 1 2 3.81 5 5 10
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)2 233.0 DU 5.44 1,268 0.36 22 62 84 0.44 63 40 103 Subtotal 1,367 23 63 86 68 45 113
Existing Uses3 255 11 7 18 14 19 33
Net Project Trips 1,112 12 56 68 54 26 80
Note:

Trip rates for shopping center and multifamily housing are from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017.

1. Shopping Center (Land Use 820) average rates expressed in trips per 1,000 square feet (ksf) are used.

2. Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (Land Use 221) average rates expressed in trips per dwelling units (DU) are used.

Size
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

3. Existing use trips based on peak-hour driveway counts conducted 8/21/2020. Daily Traffic estimated based on peak hours.

29.142
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
1 4
7 6
5 2
3 Pacific Ave
15%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
20%
5%
15%
X
= Trip Distribution
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX%
130 Center Street
Figure 7
Project Trip Distribution

29.143
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
1 4
7 6
5 2
3 Pacific Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips
130 Center Street
Figure 8
Net Project Trip Assignment
CenterSt
Laurel
St
California St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Front St
PacificAve
Laurel
St
Soquel
Ave
FrontSt
ChestnutSt
Laurel
St
CenterSt
Project
Dwy
1 3
4 5
6 7
Project Dwy 2 1(3)
8(4)
3(1)
2(8)
2(11)
11(5)
11(5)
2(11)
22(10)
6(3)7(3)
1(5)
1(3)
5(22)
1(3)
3(1)
4(2)
11(5)
4(2)
2(11)
2(8)
4(2)
6(3)8(4)
1(3)1(5)
2(8)
3(1)
5(24)
7(30)
21(10)
35(16)
1(5)
6(3)15(7)
4(19)
Center
St
Pacific
Ave
Pacific
West
Cliff
Dr
Ave

29.144
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
1 4
7 6
5 2
3 Pacific Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
130 Center Street
Figure 9
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Center St
Pacific
Ave
Pacific
West
Cliff
Dr
CenterStChestnutSt
Ave
Laurel
St
California St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Front St
PacificAve
Laurel
St
Soquel
Ave
FrontSt
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 102(96)
211(295)
1(0)1(3)
158(143)
364(355)
3(1)
245(432)
58(65)
34(33)66(39)34(45)
41(78)15(52)107(122)
20(37)
420(453)
104(81)
91(94)
312(556)
17(26)
65(47)70(79)22(30)
19(44)48(117)16(58)
36(67)
485(464)
40(46)
16(36)
348(549)
43(69)
35(33)36(73)39(44)
23(33)19(40)18(57)
50(40)
465(459)
34(50)
19(46)
377(584)
12(24)
5(11)
145(170)202(246)
34(143)165(319)33(95)
281(225)
532(414)
91(108)
56(78)
360(519)
13(18)
9(15)
236(288)
74(128)
21(38)134(284)18(101)
240(378)
78(107)
50(49)
28(54)
57(160)
23(64)
13(49)
105(136)380(413)
102(157)52(116)33(34)
358(453)
6(3)
30(40)

29.145
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 24
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
The intersection level of service analysis results show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions (see Table 5). It should be noted that, at some study intersections, the average delay under project conditions is shown to be better than under no-project conditions. This occurs because the project would result in a reduction in traffic for several of the intersection movements. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.

Table 5
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Avg. Avg.

Peak Count Delay Delay
# Intersection Control Hour Date (sec) LOS (sec) LOS
1 Signal AM 11/20/19 17.1 B 17.0 B -0.1
PM 11/20/19 17.7 B 18.3 B 0.6
2 Signal AM 11/19/19 32.1 C 32.0 C -0.1
PM 11/19/19 36.4 D 37.7 D 1.3
3 Signal AM 11/19/19 16.8 B 16.8 B 0.0
PM 11/19/19 18.9 B 19.1 B 0.2
4 Signal AM 05/14/19 29.2 C 29.6 C 0.4
PM 05/14/19 31.1 C 31.6 C 0.5
5 Roundabout AM 8/18/2020* 5.7 A 5.8 A 0.1
PM 8/18/2020* 7.4 A 7.6 A 0.2
6 Signal AM 11/19/19 16.6 B 16.7 B 0.1
PM 11/19/19 19.4 B 19.5 B 0.1
7 Signal AM 05/14/19 21.1 C 21.1 C 0.0
PM 05/14/19 25.9 C 26.0 C 0.1
Notes:

Existing Existing plus Project
California Street & Laurel Street
Incr. in
Avg.

Delay
Center Street & Laurel Street
Chestnut Street & Laurel Street
Front Street & Laurel Street
Center Street/West Cliff Drive & Pacific
Avenue
Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
Front Street & Soquel Avenue
* The 8/18/20 count at Center Street/West Cliff Drive/Pacific Avenue was factored to pre-COVID conditions.

29.146
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 25

5. Cumulative Conditions
This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions.

Peak hour traffic volumes for Cumulative conditions were obtained from the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan (PM peak hour only).

Roadway Network Under Cumulative Conditions
The City has no plans to change the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site.

Cumulative Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes under cumulative conditions were based on the total trips generated by buildout of the General Plan. The project is not included in the General Plan buildout. Therefore, to estimate the cumulative plus project volumes, the project trips were added to the General Plan buildout.

Figure 10 and Figure 11 shows the cumulative traffic volumes and cumulative with project traffic volumes, respectively.

Volumes under cumulative conditions are presented in Appendix C.

Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that the following intersections would operate under unacceptable level of service conditions during the PM peak hour, both with and without the project (see Table 6):
• Front Street & Laurel Street
• Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
• Front Street & Soquel Avenue
The project would add traffic to these deficient intersections.

The detailed level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.

29.147
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
1 4
7 6
5 2
3 Pacific Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX = PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
130 Center Street
Figure 10
Cumulative Traffic Volumes Center St
Pacific
Ave
Pacific
West
Cliff
Dr
CenterStChestnutSt
Ave
Laurel
St
California St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Front St
PacificAve
Laurel
St
Soquel
Ave
FrontSt
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 35
224326
2916923
168
752
20 11
828
30 141
5995
767226
79 866
28 111
982
91 629456
5077133
56 823
58 30
965
65 599644
635997
64 982
91 162
1075
44 4
228254
262366202
227
830
195
165
996
29 46
523243
75649193
498
314
79 70
262
44 18
166549
21416234
444
172
62 29.148
Laurel St
Front St
Chestnut St
Center St
State Rte 1
California St
Soquel Ave
Santa Cruz
1 4
7 6
5 2
3 Pacific Ave
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX = PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
130 Center Street
Figure 11
Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes Center St
Pacific
Ave
Pacific
West
Cliff
Dr
CenterStChestnutSt
Ave
Laurel
St
California St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Laurel
St
Front St
PacificAve
Laurel
St
Soquel
Ave
FrontSt
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 35
224326
2916926
168
756
21 11
836
30 141
5995
767237
79 871
33 111
993
91 729759
5082133
59 823
58 30
965
87 599644
665997
64 982
91 163
1077
44 4
233256
262377202
235
830
195
165
998
29 46
526247
78654193
506
314
79 71
262
44 18
171549
21416541
444
172
81 29.149
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 28
Table 6
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
Planned Improvements
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR identified several roadway improvements for which the costs would be covered by anticipated future development projects. The 130 Front Street’s fair share payment was calculated based on its cumulative traffic added to the study intersections.

The recommended improvements under cumulative conditions are described below. The resulting cumulative plus project level of service analysis is shown in Table 7.

Avg. Avg.

Peak Delay Delay
# Intersection Control Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS
1 Signal AM - - - -
PM 35.0 D 37.4 D
2 Signal AM - - - -
PM 49.3 D 50.5 D
3 Signal AM - - - -
PM 39.7 D 40.9 D
4 Signal AM - - - -
PM 63.0 E 63.7 E
5 Roundabout AM - - - -
PM 11.7 B 12.3 B
6 Signal AM - - - -
PM 59.0 E 59.3 E
7 Signal AM - - - -
PM 57.0 E 58.7 E
Notes:

BOLD indicates a substandard level of service.

Cumulative no Project
Conditions
Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions
California Street & Laurel Street
Center Street & Laurel Street
Chestnut Street & Laurel Street
Front Street & Laurel Street
Center Street/West Cliff Drive & Pacific
Avenue
Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
Front Street & Soquel Avenue

29.150
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 29
Table 7
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service with Improvements Front Street and Laurel Street
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by converting the westbound rightturn lane into a shared through-right lane. The west leg would be widened to provide a receiving lane between Pacific Avenue and Front Street, relocating sidewalk, utilities, and landscaping. A right-turn overlap phase would be provided for the northbound and southbound approaches.

The cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be $599,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by the construction of a southbound left-turn lane and removing the existing landscaped median.

The engineering cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be approximately $313,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Front Street and Soquel Avenue
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by adding a second westbound leftturn lane. The centerline median would be shifted south, and the east leg would be reduced to one through lane between Front Street and River Street. The westbound shared through-left lane would be converted into a through lane. The signal timing and phasing would be optimized.

The cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be $599,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Avg. Avg. Avg.

Peak Delay Delay Delay
# Intersection Control Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 35.0 D 37.4 D - -
2 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 49.3 D 50.5 D - -
3 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 39.7 D 40.9 D - -
4 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 63.0 E 63.7 E 47.1 D
5 Roundabout AM - - - - - -
PM 11.7 B 12.3 B - -
6 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 59.0 E 59.3 E 45.1 D
7 Signal AM - - - - - -
PM 57.0 E 58.7 E 53.8 D
Notes:

BOLD indicates a substandard level of service.

Cumulative no Project
Conditions
Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions
California Street & Laurel Street
Center Street & Laurel Street
Chestnut Street & Laurel Street
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
with Improvements
Front Street & Laurel Street
Center Street/West Cliff Drive & Pacific
Avenue
Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
Front Street & Soquel Avenue

29.151
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 30
Front Street Improvements
The 130 Center Street project would add traffic to Front Street. Santa Cruz plans to improve the operation of Front Street by implementing a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). The TWLTL would extend from Soquel Avenue to Laurel Street. With the implementation of this continuous two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking on both sides of the street would be eliminated. Continuous Class bike lanes and Class II buffered bike lanes would be provided with the restriping of Front Street.

The cost to construct these improvements is estimated to be $169,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study.

The project’s fair share is estimated to be 21.44%. This is based on the 80 PM peak hour project trips divided by the Downtown Plan Amendments’ 293 PM peak hour net new trips plus the project’s PM peak hour net new trips (80/373 = 21.44%).

29.152
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 31

6. Other Transportation Issues
This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an analysis of:
• Potential impacts to pedestrians, bicycles, and transit services • Site access and on-site circulation
• Queuing Analysis
• Parking
Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection levels of service was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis for leftturn lanes at intersections where the project would add more than 10 left-turn movements (See Table 8). This analysis provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at the intersections under existing plus project conditions. The intersection queuing analysis was conducted using SYNCHRO traffic analysis software. Along with providing overall control delay and level of service for the intersection, SYNCHRO provides total movement delay and 95th-percentile vehicle queues for each movement., described in Chapter 1. The following movements were selected for evaluation:
• Center Street and Laurel Street – Northbound left turn Center Street and Laurel Street
The estimated 95th percentile queues for the northbound left-turn currently provides adequate storage capacity under existing plus project conditions. The existing left-turn lane provides 75 feet of queue storage. The project would increase the 95th percentile queue for the northbound left turn lane by 25 feet or 1 vehicle.

29.153
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 32
Table 8
Queuing Analysis
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
A review of the project site plan was performed to determine whether adequate site access and onsite circulation would be provided, using commonly accepted transportation planning principles and traffic engineering standards. This review was based on the site plan prepared by Swenson dated February 5, 2021, shown on Figure 2.

Site Access
Vehicle site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site driveway with regard to stopping sight distance and traffic volumes. The project generated traffic would access the site via a proposed full-access driveway on Center Street approximately 500 feet north of Pacific Avenue.

According to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, the full-access driveway shall be no less than twenty feet in width. According to the site plan, the full-access driveway would have a width of approximately 28 feet, which meets the City’s standard.

Project Driveway Access
An analysis of the southbound left turn at the project driveway was conducted to determine if the project would cause any operational issues. The project driveway would be on Center Street approximately 500 feet north of Pacific Avenue. Center Street is a two-way north-south street with one lane in each direction at the project driveway. Center Street does not have a left turn lane for the southbound direction for vehicles turning left into the project site. Thus, vehicles turning left would have to stop in the southbound though lane and wait for a gap in the opposing traffic. As shown in Table 4, there would be 12 inbound and 56 outbound trips at the full-access driveway during the AM peak hour, and 53 inbound and 25 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Of the inbound traffic in both peak hours, 7 vehicles would make left turns during the AM peak hour, and 30 vehicles would make left turns during the PM peak hour.

The time between arrivals was compared to the critical gap and follow-up times to determine the number of vehicles that could successfully complete the southbound left-turn movement during the AM and PM peak hours. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the minimum gap time required for a vehicle to turn left from Center Street into the project driveway is 4.1 seconds. Subsequent vehicles attempting to make a left turn would require 2.2 seconds in follow-up time in addition to minimum gap of

4.1 seconds. Based on the analysis of southbound left turns, there are sufficient gaps to accommodate Intersection Movement
Peak
Period
Storage
Length
(ft)
95th
Percentile
Queue
(feet)1 2 3
95th
Percentile
Queue
(feet)1 2 3
Estimated Increase
in 95th Percentile
Queue (feet)
Center Street and Laurel Street NB LT AM 75 50 75 25
PM 75 50 50 0
Notes:

NB = northbound.

LT = left turn movement.
1 Based on 95th percentile queue reported by Synchro software using the HCM methodology. 2 Queue lengths rounded up to nearest 25 feet.
3 25 feet per vehicle queued.

Existing Existing Plus Project

29.154
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 33
up to 1446 and 1398 southbound left turns during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Thus, the modest project traffic volume would not face any delays in getting into and out of the garage. The driveway queuing analysis is included in Appendix A.

A vehicle queuing analysis for the southbound left-turn movement into the project driveway was also conducted. The estimated 95th percentile queue for the vehicles turning left from southbound Center Street into the project driveway was calculated to be no more than one vehicle in the AM and PM peak hours.

Sight Distance
The proposed project driveway should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance.

Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at the driveway and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic and exit the site. Center Street is straight, and there are no landscaping features shown on the site plan that would affect sight distance.

However, on-street parking is allowed on Center Street, which could block vision. It is recommended that 15 feet of red curb be painted on both sides of the driveway.

On-site Circulation
On-site circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards.

The project would have a full-access driveway on Center Street that leads into the parking garage. The entrance driveway would split with part leading into the at-grade parking area and part leading to the underground garage. However, vehicles would not be able to turn sharply enough to access the atgrade parking from the driveway. Therefore, Hexagon recommends that the entrance to the parking garage be relocated or provide a second driveway that aligns with the at-grade parking area.

The parking garage has an at-grade level and an underground level. Within the parking garage, there would be a drive aisle that leads to the parking spaces. The drive aisle width is shown to be approximately 24 feet. The width of the drive aisle would provide sufficient space for vehicles to back out of the parking stalls. The site plan shows no dead-end parking aisles.

Access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a ramp. According to the site plan, the ramp would have a 20% slope with a 10% transition slope. The slope of the parking garage ramp would provide access for motor vehicles entering and existing the underground garage. However, the garage ramp would be too steep for bicycles, and the use of stairwells for bicycles would be awkward.

While the elevator is the preferred access path and is accessible at the front entrance, Hexagon recommends that all of the long-term bicycle parking be relocated to the ground floor.

There would be a bike café located within the garage at ground level. The bike café would be for tenants to store and work on their bicycles.

The project was checked relative to the City’s loading space requirements. According to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, off-street loading areas shall be provided for retail uses with 10,000 square feet or more. For retail uses with 10,000 to 24,999 square feet, 1 loading space shall be provided. The project proposes 2,618 square feet of retail use. Since the total commercial use would be less than 10,000 square feet, no loading space is required. For the residential units, loading spaces are not required.

However, parking spaces are currently provided in front of the site. Residents could use the parking spaces in front of the site near the lobby/leasing area for unloading/loading.

Potential Impacts to Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit The existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the immediate vicinity of the project site provides good connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to various points of interest in the study area, including nearby bus stops along Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street. In the project vicinity,

29.155
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 34
sidewalks are provided along the project’s frontage on Center Street. The project would retain the existing driveway along Center Street. However, the site plan may require a second driveway that aligns with the entrance to the parking garage. Therefore, the project could have a detrimental impact on pedestrian circulation by having two driveways where currently there is only one driveway.

The site has very good bicycle access. As described in Chapter 2, bike lanes are provided along all the study streets. Based on the site plan, the project would provide bicycle parking on the ground floor and the underground floor.

The project site is currently well-served by bus transit. There are five local bus lines (Route 3, 16, 19, 20 and 42) that serve the immediate project area. The bus stops closest to the project site are on Pacific Avenue. The bus routes run throughout the day with 60-minute headways. The bus services have ample capacity to accommodate the ridership that would be generated by the project.

Parking
Vehicle Parking
Parking provided on the site was evaluated based on the City of Santa Cruz parking standards.

According to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, the parking requirement for single-room occupancy units under 300 square feet is 0.75 parking space per unit and single-occupancy units over 300 square feet is 1 parking space per unit. However, according to the State Density Bonus Law and the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, if a development includes the maximum percentage of low-income or very low income units required for a 50% density bonus and is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop and there is unobstructed access to major transit stop, then the city shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom. A development has unobstructed access to a major transit stop if a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments.

The proposed would provide 23 very-low income units and 8 moderate income units, which is 15 percent of the units that are permitted under the City’s zoning. This is the percentage of very-low income units necessary to achieve a maximum density bonus. In addition, the development is located within on-half mile of a transit stop and has unobstructed access to the major stop. Thus, the density bonus law’s reduced parking ratios apply to the project development.

The project proposes 233 single-room occupancy units. Therefore, under the density bonus, the project is required to provide a minimum of 117 on-site residential parking spaces.

The project also proposes retail uses on the site. The project proposes to construct 2,618 square feet of retail use. The vehicle requirement for retail uses is 1 parking space per 120 square feet of floor area.

Since the floor area of the retail use is approximately 2,225 square feet, the project is required to provide a minimum of 19 parking spaces for retail uses. Thus, the total required parking is 136 spaces.

The project is proposing 209 spaces, which meets the requirement. The project proposes to install stacked parking systems, a three-level puzzle lift, in the basement level of the parking garage. It is assumed that the stacked parking systems would only be used for residential parking. The standard parking spaces would be used by the employees of the retail use and guests.

The City of Santa Cruz parking standards also require that electric vehicle parking be made available for residential and retail uses. The electric vehicle parking requirement for multifamily residential use is 12% of the total parking. The electric vehicle parking requirement for nonresidential uses is 1 parking space if 10-25 parking spaces are provided. Therefore, the project must provide 25 electric parking spaces for residential use and 1 electric parking space for retail use, which totals 26 electric parking spaces. The project proposes 139 electric vehicle parking spaces, which meets the standard.

29.156
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 35
Bicycle Parking
According to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, bicycle parking facilities are required for new buildings, additions or enlargements of an existing building, or for any change in the occupancy, except when the project property is located within Parking District #1. Since the project is not located within Parking District #1, bicycle parking facilities are required. The bicycle parking requirement for a multifamily residential use is 1 space per unit with all of the bicycle spaces being long-term bicycle spaces. Thus, the bicycle parking requirement is 233 spaces. The bicycle parking requirement for a retail use is 2 spaces plus 15 percent of the automobile parking for that land use, which calculates to 5 bicycle parking spaces. Therefore, the project would need to provide 238 long-term bicycle spaces. According to the site plan, the project proposes to provide 177 long-term bicycle spaces in the basement level, 51 long-term bicycle spaces on the ground floor, and 72 long-term bicycle spaces in the bike café, which adds up to 300 bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the bicycle parking requirement. The residents could also keep their bicycles in their units. The project would also provide four short-term bicycle parking racks in front of the project site. Each bicycle rack could hold up to four bicycles. Therefore, the project would provide up to 16 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The short-term bicycle spaces would be provided for visitors and customers.

29.157
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 36

7. Conclusions
The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Santa Cruz. The traffic study analyzed AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for seven intersections. Project impacts on site access, on-site circulation, and other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit service, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
According to the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Study Guidelines for Development, retail development less than 50,000 square feet can be considered local-serving retail. The policy states that local-serving retail development would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. The project proposes 2,618 square feet of retail use on the ground floor, so it is considered local-serving and would not have a VMT impact.

For the residential portion of the project, the VMT impact is determined by comparing against the VMT thresholds of significance as established in the City of Santa Cruz Transportation Study Guidelines for Development. The Santa Cruz VMT sketch tool is used to estimate the project VMT. The threshold of significance for residential uses is used for the VMT analysis. The VMT threshold for residential development is 8.7 daily VMT per capita.

The project VMT estimated by the sketch tool is 4.2 per capita. The project VMT would not exceed the threshold of 8.7 VMT per capita. The project is also located within ½ mile of a major transit stop.

Therefore, the project’s VMT impact is considered less than significant.

Project Trip Estimates
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). The rates published for Multifamily Housing – MidRise (Land Use 221) and Shopping Center (Land Use 820) were used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed residential units and retail square footage, respectively. Based on these rates, the proposed project would generate 1,367 daily trips with 86 trips during the AM peak hour and 113 trips during the PM peak hour.

Trips generated by the existing uses on the site can be credited against the proposed mixed-use development. The existing businesses’ trip generation estimates are based on peak-hour driveway counts conducted in August 2020. Based on the driveway counts, it is estimated that the existing businesses are generating 255 daily trips with 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 33 trips during the

29.158
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 37
PM peak hour. The daily trips were estimated based on the average of both peak hour trips multiplied by a factor of 10.

After accounting for the trips generated by the existing businesses, the proposed mixed-use project is estimated to generate 1,112 new daily trips with a net increase of 68 trips in the AM peak hour and a net increase of 80 trips in the PM peak hour.

Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
The intersection level of service analysis results show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions.

It should be noted that, at some study intersections, the average delay under project conditions is shown to be better than under no-project conditions. This occurs because the project would result in a reduction in traffic for several of the intersection movements.

Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that the following intersections would operate under unacceptable level of service conditions during the PM peak hour, both with and without the project (see Table 6):
• Front Street & Laurel Street
• Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
• Front Street & Soquel Avenue
The project would add traffic to these deficient intersections.

Planned Improvements
The Downtown Plan Amendments EIR has identified several roadway improvements for which the costs would be covered by anticipated future development projects. The 130 Front Street’s fair share payment was calculated based on its cumulative traffic added to the study intersections.

Front Street and Laurel Street
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by converting the westbound rightturn lane into a shared through-right lane. The west leg would be widened to provide a receiving lane between Pacific Avenue and Front Street, relocating sidewalk, utilities, and landscaping. A right-turn overlap phase would be provided for the northbound and southbound approaches.

The cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be $599,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Pacific Avenue and Laurel Street
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by the construction of a southbound left-turn lane and removing the existing landscaped median.

The engineering cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be approximately $313,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this

29.159
130 Center Street Mixed-Use Development February 9, 2021 P a g e | 38
improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Front Street and Soquel Avenue
Improvement: Intersection operations would be improved by adding a second westbound leftturn lane. The centerline median would be shifted south, and the east leg would be reduced to one through lane between Front Street and River Street. The westbound shared through-left lane would be converted into a through lane. The signal timing and phasing would be optimized.

The cost for the construction of this improvement is estimated to be $599,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Front Street Improvements
The 130 Center Street project would add traffic to Front Street. Santa Cruz plans to improve the operation of Front Street by implementing a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). The TWLTL would extend from Soquel Avenue to Laurel Street. With the implementation of this continuous two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking on both sides of the street would be eliminated. Continuous Class bike lanes and Class II buffered bike lanes would be provided with the restriping of Front Street.

The cost to construct these improvements is estimated to be $169,000 based on the 508 Front Street TIA study.

The project’s fair share is estimated to be 21.44%. This is based on the 80 PM peak hour project trips divided by the Downtown Plan Amendments’ 293 PM peak hour net new trips plus the project’s PM peak hour net new trips (80/373 = 21.44%).

Other Transportation Issues
Hexagon identified the following recommendations resulting off the site access and circulation and parking.
• Vehicles would not be able to turn sharply enough to access the at-grade parking from the driveway. Therefore, Hexagon recommends that the entrance to the parking garage be relocated or provide a second driveway that aligns with the at-grade parking area. • The project would retain the existing driveway along Center Street. However, the site plan may require a second driveway that aligns with the entrance to the parking garage. Therefore, the project could have a detrimental impact on pedestrian circulation by having two driveways where currently there is only one driveway.
• Long-term bicycle parking should be relocated to the ground floor.

29.160
130 Center Street
Traffic impact Analysis
Technical Appendices
February 9, 2021

29.161
Appendix A
Traffic Counts

29.162
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
9 7
18 44
8 9
8 7
110
47 1 60 30 24 1 14 69
3 26
Peak Hour 12 15 1 1 29 4 8
Count Total 23 32 3 1 59 7 18 64 1 90 46 35
8:45 AM 4 7 0 0 11 1 5 5 0 11 3 1 0 3
0 11 2 2 1 3
2 8:30 AM 3 4 0 0 7 3 3 5
5 1 10 4 3 0
0 7
8:15 AM 4 3 0 1 8 0 4
1 4 0 6 1 0
19 0 2
8:00 AM 2 4 0 0 6 1
0 0 33 0 33 23
7 0 4
2 7:30 AM 3 4 2 0 9 1 2 8
1 0 4 3 2 0
0 5 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 3 4 1 0 8
0 11 7
HV% - - 5% 0% - - 1% -
2 3
7:15 AM 3 2 0 0 5 0 3
0 3 0 4 3 1
West North South
7:00 AM 1 4 0
1 58 0 158 356 0 0 102 0 211 0 0 1
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
1% 4% - 0% - - 100% - 3%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 243
0 1 191 0 335 0
14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 29 0
0 1,129 0
HV 0 0 12 0 0
Count Total 0 0 399 102 0 216 655 1 1 0 1,901 0
0 31 79 0 0 26 0 58 0 0 0 0 270 1,060
0 0 0 249 1,129
8:45 AM 0 0 56 20
0 0 26 0 48 0
282 1,127
8:30 AM 0 0 58 13 0 24 80
0 38 84 0 0 23 0 69 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 259 983
8:15 AM 0 0 56 11
0 0 17 0 35 0
339 841
8:00 AM 0 0 61 17 0 44 85
0 52 107 0 0 36 0 59 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 247 0
7:45 AM 0 0 68 17
0 1 27 0 29 0
138 0
7:30 AM 0 0 51 12 0 11 115
0 8 52 0 0 19 0 23 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 117 0
7:15 AM 0 0 26 10
7:00 AM 0 0 23 2 0 8 53 0 0 17 0 14 0

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St California St California St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 11-19-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 100.0% 0.25
TOTAL 2.6% 0.83
TH RT
WB 2.9% 0.81
NB 0.3% 0.82
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 4.0% 0.89
1 3
0 1
00 37
10 0
0 5
3 1
14 24
30 N
California St
Laurel St
Laurel St
California St
Laurel St California St
TEV: 1,129
PHF: 0.83
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 356
158
514
454
0 211
0 102
217
313
0 58
243
0 301
458
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.163 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
12 12
15 6
15 15
11 12
98 23 0 35 10 16 3 18 47
8 29
Peak Hour 8 8 3 0 19 10 2
Count Total 24 21 5 0 50 23 8 34 0 65 23 38
5:45 PM 5 2 0 0 7 3 2 2 0 7 2 6 3 1
0 17 2 4 3 2
8 5:30 PM 3 1 1 0 5 5 1 11
4 0 5 1 6 0
0 7
5:15 PM 1 2 1 0 4 1 0
0 4 0 6 5 3
3 0 1
5:00 PM 2 2 0 0 4 2
2 1 4 0 7 2
8 1 3
4 4:30 PM 2 3 1 0 6 4 3 2
5 0 6 4 3 1
0 10 5
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 3 1 0 6
0 9 3
HV% - - 2% 0% - - 2% -
0 3
4:15 PM 4 3 1 0 8 1 0
1 2 0 8 4 5
West North South
4:00 PM 5 5 0
0 65 0 143 351 0 0 96 0 295 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 2% - 0% - - - - 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 424
0 0 185 0 540 0
8 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 19 0
0 1,374 0
HV 0 0 8 0 0
Count Total 0 0 817 125 0 261 634 0 0 0 2,562 0
0 29 68 0 0 33 0 71 0 0 0 0 318 1,366
0 0 0 337 1,374
5:45 PM 0 0 98 19
0 0 28 0 80 0
386 1,349
5:30 PM 0 0 109 13 0 34 73
0 46 91 0 0 28 0 103 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 325 1,231
5:15 PM 0 0 100 18
0 0 21 0 60 0
326 1,196
5:00 PM 0 0 114 13 0 29 88
0 34 99 0 0 19 0 52 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 312 0
4:45 PM 0 0 101 21
0 0 18 0 63 0
268 0
4:30 PM 0 0 105 10 0 36 80
0 22 72 0 0 20 0 47 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 290 0
4:15 PM 0 0 87 20
4:00 PM 0 0 103 11 0 31 63 0 0 18 0 64 0

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St California St California St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 11-19-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB - -
TOTAL 1.4% 0.89
TH RT
WB 1.6% 0.90
NB 0.8% 0.75
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.6% 0.96
0 10
0 0
00 18
05 0
1 1
3 18
16 10
N
California St
Laurel St
Laurel St
California St
Laurel St California St
TEV: 1,374
PHF: 0.89
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 351
143
494
719
0 295
0 96
208
391
0 65
424
0 489
447
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.164 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
15 8
14 12
15 11
21 17
113
59 Date: 11-20-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 1.2% 0.73
TOTAL 2.5% 0.87
TH RT
WB 2.9% 0.82
NB 0.8% 0.92
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 2.7% 0.91

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 3 75 12 0 6
2 8 1 146 0
7:15 AM 0 3 47 13
7:00 AM 0 2 46 4 0 4 56 3 0 10 9 1 0
5 11 5 238 0
7:45 AM 0 5 90 16
8 0 11 11 2 0
181 0
7:30 AM 0 0 63 15 0 6 101
4 2 0 4 10 2
334 899
8:00 AM 0 3 79 13 0 9 100
0 12 144 15 0 8 16 2 0 3 15 8
0 10 95 6 0 12
5 15 8 275 1,028
8:15 AM 0 2 95 5
10 0 11 17 5 0
5 6 1 295 1,166
8:45 AM 0 5 96 10
9 0 12 16 2 0
262 1,109
8:30 AM 0 6 84 4 0 4 146
15 6 0 3 11 2
0 4 131 9 0 10 16 4 0 1 13 5 304 1,136
Count Total 0 26 600 80 0 52 848 28 89 32 2,035 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 16 348
72 0 80 104 24 0
16 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 29 0
19 1,166 0
HV 0 0 10 1 0 0
38 0 35 485 40 0 43 64 15 0 16 47
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 3% 3% - 0% 3% 0% - 0% 0% 7% - 0% 2% 0% 2%
7 5
7:15 AM 3 3 1 1 8 2 2
0 0 0 1 1 2
West North South
7:00 AM 3 3 0 0 6 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 2 4 0 0 6
1 9 0 3 9 2
2 7:30 AM 3 2 0 0 5 5 3 0
1 0 5 0 0 6
4 2
8:15 AM 4 5 1 0 10 3 1
1 3 0 5 0 9
1 5 6
8:00 AM 3 5 0 1 9 1
1 4 3 0 8 0
8:45 AM 3 6 2 0 11
0 3 0 3 11 7
6 8:30 AM 2 2 0 0 4 2 1 0
1 0 5 0 3 2
8 5 5 1 19 1 4 8 4
52 34
Peak Hour 11 16 1 1 29 7 7
Count Total 23 30 4 2 59 23 17 13 2 55 2 25
7 0 21 0 16 22 21
0 6
1 0
00 05
2 0
6 1
22 21
16 0
N
Center St
Laurel St
Laurel St
Center St
Laurel St Center St
TEV: 1,166
PHF: 0.87
19 47
16 82
120
0 40
485
35 560
379
0 43
6415
120
122
0 38
348
16 402
547
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.165 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
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 6 0
7:15 AM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
8 0
7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 1
0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0
7:45 AM 0 0 2 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 9 28
8:15 AM 0 0 3 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 25
8:00 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
10 30
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 6 0 0 2
0 0 0 4 29
8:45 AM 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 11 34
0 2 0 59 0
Peak Hour 0 0 10 1
Count Total 0 1 21 1 0 0 29 1 0 3 0 1 0
7:00 AM 1 0
RT
29 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
23 8:00 AM
0 2 1 8
9 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
2 1
1 3 0
3 21
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
27 8:30 AM
0 1 0 0 0 0 5
5 27
8:15 AM
0 2 1
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 8 0 1 2 2 0 19 32
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 2
0 LT TH
0 5 2 0 0 0 21
1 8 4 0 55 0
0 0
0 1
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 2 0
5 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1 6 0 1 6 0
1 22 0 1 15 1
0 1 0
0 5 0
1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.166 www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
9 11
9 11
12 4
10 8
74 34
Date: 08/18/2020
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 1.6% 0.73
TOTAL 4.2% 0.81
TH RT
WB 5.2% 0.74
NB 2.2% 0.81
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 4.5% 0.92

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 4 27 4 0 3
0 8 0 68 0
7:15 AM 0 0 27 7
7:00 AM 0 0 17 7 0 3 22 2 0 3 4 2 0
1 7 2 133 0
7:45 AM 0 4 42 9
4 0 1 4 2 0
84 0
7:30 AM 0 1 49 11 0 3 48
2 5 0 2 1 2
157 442
8:00 AM 0 1 60 8 0 4 40
0 3 59 9 0 7 4 5 0 2 12 1
0 7 57 6 0 7
5 3 1 162 536
8:15 AM 0 1 59 9
12 0 6 15 7 0
6 9 7 175 663
8:45 AM 0 4 59 10
8 0 6 10 3 0
169 621
8:30 AM 0 0 51 7 0 9 59
7 2 0 2 9 3
0 16 85 3 0 12 14 2 0 2 12 5 224 730
Count Total 0 11 364 68 0 49 397 20 61 21 1,172 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 6 229
48 0 45 60 28 0
15 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 31 0
16 730 0
HV 0 0 11 1 0 1
34 0 36 241 29 0 31 46 14 0 15 33
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 5% 3% - 3% 6% 0% - 0% 4% 0% - 0% 3% 0% 4%
2 4
7:15 AM 4 2 0 1 7 1 5
0 0 0 2 0 3
West North South
7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 2
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 2 0 0 3
0 3 1 0 5 3
4 7:30 AM 0 7 0 1 8 1 2 0
0 0 6 0 0 7
0 6
8:15 AM 2 4 0 0 6 2 1
4 0 1 6 2 4
4 0 5
8:00 AM 1 4 1 0 6 1
2 2 0 0 4 2
8:45 AM 4 2 1 1 8
0 3 2 2 4 2
4 8:30 AM 5 6 0 0 11 0 3 0
0 0 3 0 0 0
5 1 0 1 7 1 1 3 3
21 31
Peak Hour 12 16 2 1 31 8 9
Count Total 17 27 3 3 50 14 18 0 2 34 8 14
0 2 19 5 7 7 15
0 7
1 1
01 00
0 0
9 0
7 15
7 5
N
Center St
Laurel St
Laurel St
Center St
Laurel St Center St
TEV: 730
PHF: 0.81
16 33
15 64
81 0
29 241
36 306
258
0 31
4614
103
91 0
34 229
6 269
288
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.167 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
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 3 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
7 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 1 0 8 0
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 24
8:15 AM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
3 19
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 23
8:30 AM 0 0 5 0 0 0 6
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 11 26
8:45 AM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 8 31
0 2 1 50 0
Peak Hour 0 0 11 1
Count Total 0 0 15 2 0 1 26 0 0 0 3 0 0
7:00 AM 2 0
RT
31 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 1 15 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
15 8:00 AM
0 0 0 4
3 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
2 0
0 2 0
3 16
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
16 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 3
6 19
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 5 0 0 0 0 1 7 19
Peak Hour
Count Total 1 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 1 0 1 19
0 0 0 1 34 0
0 0
0 0
0 2 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0
0 1
0 4 0
0 5 0
0 1 7 0 0 9 0
2 12 0 0 18 0
0 3 0
0 1 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.168 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
28 20
31 19
24 34
20 21
197
94 Date: 11-20-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.0% 0.91
TOTAL 1.7% 0.91
TH RT
WB 1.7% 0.88
NB 0.7% 0.88
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM 5:15 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 2.5% 0.93

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 8 106 10 0 8
13 32 6 390 0
4:15 PM 0 7 157 6
4:00 PM 0 9 147 10 0 18 107 9 0 11 19 9 0
15 30 11 377 0
4:45 PM 0 10 130 14
13 0 12 18 7 0
375 0
4:30 PM 0 10 121 13 0 17 110
19 6 0 9 31 8
381 1,523
5:00 PM 0 9 141 14 0 19 132
0 20 116 10 0 7 15 8 0 12 28 11
0 16 109 10 0 13
22 23 14 427 1,560
5:15 PM 0 6 122 11
13 0 10 24 6 0
13 9 6 314 1,495
5:45 PM 0 4 148 12
6 0 14 7 6 0
373 1,558
5:30 PM 0 8 142 5 0 10 88
27 17 0 12 18 12
0 11 96 9 0 20 10 6 0 12 20 6 354 1,468
Count Total 0 63 1,108 85 0 119 864 108 191 74 2,991 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 36 549
80 0 95 139 65 0
10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0
44 1,560 0
HV 0 0 15 1 0 0
47 0 64 464 46 0 37 76 27 0 58 112
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 3% 2% - 0% 2% 0% - 3% 0% 0% - 0% 0% 0% 2%
10 12
4:15 PM 5 1 0 0 6 6 3
4 1 1 11 5 1
West North South
4:00 PM 1 3 0 0 4 5
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 3 0 0 5
3 12 5 3 9 14
9 4:30 PM 3 4 0 0 7 4 5 0
2 4 15 2 2 7
5 5
5:15 PM 2 3 0 0 5 7 6
6 5 4 19 4 10
2 8 7
5:00 PM 6 2 1 0 9 4
5 1 3 3 12 2
5:45 PM 4 2 0 0 6
2 11 2 1 8 9
13 5:30 PM 2 2 0 0 4 7 1 1
1 5 19 5 4 12
6 2 1 0 9 2 3 9 7
68 76
Peak Hour 16 10 1 0 27 19 15
Count Total 25 20 1 0 46 44 28 14 22 108 27 26
10 14 58 13 17 29 35
2 17
0 2
102
15 4
0 15
0 29
35 17
13 N
Center St
Laurel St
Laurel St
Center St
Laurel St Center St
TEV: 1,560
PHF: 0.91
44 112
58 214
158
0 46
464
64 574
634
0 37
7627
223
140
0 47
549
36 632
545
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.169 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
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 4 0
4:15 PM 0 0 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

UT LT TH RT UT LT
6 0
4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 4
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 7 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 9 27
5:15 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
5 22
5:00 PM 0 0 5 1 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 26
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 23
5:45 PM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 6 24
0 0 0 46 0
Peak Hour 0 0 15 1
Count Total 0 0 24 1 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 0
4:00 PM 11 0
RT
27 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
50 5:00 PM
0 0 3 12
12 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 15
5 0
0 1 0
11 61
5:45 PM
0 1 0 0
62 5:30 PM
0 1 0 0 5 0 19
19 58
5:15 PM
1 4 0
0 7 0
0 7 0
0 6 0
0 6 0 0 1 0 0 9 58
Peak Hour
Count Total 2 18
0 LT TH
1 5 4 2 10 2 58
1 9 4 2 108 0
2 0
0 0
0 5 0 1
1 1
0 6 0
4 LT TH
3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
4 0 3
0 0
0 6 0
0 3 0
0 0 17 2 0 15 0
0 42 2 1 27 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
2 1
0 3 0
0 4 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.170 www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
7 8
12 5
17 9
18 15
91 42
Date: 08/18/2020
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.0% 0.93
TOTAL 1.0% 0.97
TH RT
WB 1.7% 0.92
NB 0.6% 0.88
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM 5:15 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.8% 0.93

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 13 115 6 0 17
4 28 6 304 0
4:15 PM 0 0 101 15
4:00 PM 0 2 99 25 0 20 88 3 0 14 9 6 0
10 19 3 335 0
4:45 PM 0 5 107 25
8 0 14 12 9 0
330 0
4:30 PM 0 4 113 21 0 15 107
14 9 0 6 27 7
348 1,317
5:00 PM 0 6 101 15 0 18 123
0 18 101 11 0 9 21 10 0 7 27 7
0 4 114 7 0 13
12 25 2 354 1,367
5:15 PM 0 3 94 18
6 0 21 14 11 0
8 24 5 277 1,289
5:45 PM 0 5 101 15
7 0 14 11 5 0
310 1,347
5:30 PM 0 7 81 16 0 14 85
10 6 0 5 29 7
0 14 90 4 0 13 11 8 0 7 20 4 292 1,233
Count Total 0 32 797 150 0 116 823 59 199 41 2,550 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 15 422
52 0 115 102 64 0
7 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 0
19 1,367 0
HV 0 0 4 0 0 0
76 0 64 446 31 0 61 61 39 0 35 98
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - 0% 1% 0% - 0% 2% 6% - 0% 0% 3% - 0% 0% 0% 1%
3 3
4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 4 5
3 0 0 6 0 1
West North South
4:00 PM 2 1 1 0 4 3
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 1 2 0 0 3
0 8 1 3 4 4
4 4:30 PM 3 3 1 0 7 6 2 0
0 0 9 0 1 3
6 3
5:15 PM 0 1 0 2 3 4 2
3 0 0 13 4 4
0 4 1
5:00 PM 0 3 0 0 3 10
5 2 0 0 7 0
5:45 PM 2 2 0 0 4
0 5 0 7 5 6
3 5:30 PM 2 0 1 1 4 3 2 0
0 0 6 2 2 2
4 2 0 1 7 2 4 2 7
29 31
Peak Hour 4 9 1 0 14 25 12
Count Total 10 13 3 3 29 39 21 0 1 61 9 22
0 0 37 5 8 17 12
0 23
2 0
00 00
0 0
12 0
17 12
8 5
N
Center St
Laurel St
Laurel St
Center St
Laurel St Center St
TEV: 1,367
PHF: 0.97
19 98
35 152
107
0 31
446
64 541
496
0 61
6139
238
161
0 76
422
15 513
526
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.171 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
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 4 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
1 0
4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 7 0
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0
2 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 3 14
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 15
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 16
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 1 0 4 13
5:45 PM 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14
0 2 1 29 0
Peak Hour 0 0 4 0
Count Total 0 1 9 0 0 0 11 2 0 0 2 1 0
4:00 PM 6 0
RT
14 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Center St Center St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 7 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
30 5:00 PM
0 0 0 7
8 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
2 0
0 2 0
5 31
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
34 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 6
13 37
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 4 0
0 3 0
0 2 0
0 4 0 0 0 0 1 7 31
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 37
0 0 0 1 61 0
0 0
0 0
0 3 0 0
0 0
0 4 0
5 LT TH
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 9
0 1
0 3 0
0 5 0
0 2 23 0 0 12 0
2 37 0 0 21 0
0 2 0
0 2 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.172 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. 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 2 0
0 10 0 1 1 0
0 22 1 3 5 0
0 5 0 0
0 0
0 0 1
4 LT TH
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
2 0 2
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 LT TH
0 5 18 0 0 0 35
0 6 28 0 65 0
0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 7 35
17 35
5:45 PM
0 3 8 0
27 5:30 PM
0 1 3 0 0 0 5
6 28
5:15 PM
0 1 3
0 1 0
0 5 0
0 0 0
30 5:00 PM
0 0 4 7
9 0
4:45 PM
0 0 2 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 6
1 0
0 1 0
4:00 PM 8 0
RT
19 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St California St California St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 8 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 0 0 50 0
Peak Hour 0 0 8 0
Count Total 0 0 24 0 0 1 20 0 0 2 0 3 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20
0 0 0 5 19
5:45 PM 0 0 5 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
4 20
5:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 1
0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 24
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 30
5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 0
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
8 0
4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 10 0
4:15 PM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 5 0 0 1 4

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St California St California St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.173 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. 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 2 0
1 4 0
0 3 1 3 5 0
0 6 1 6 12 0
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
1 LT TH
0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0
0 1 0
2 1 0
0 LT TH
0 37 10 0 0 1 60
0 48 16 1 90 0
0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 11 38
11 60
8:45 AM
0 1 4 0
60 8:30 AM
0 1 4 0 0 1 10
6 54
8:15 AM
0 3 1
0 0 0
0 2 1
2 2 0
52 8:00 AM
0 32 1 33
11 0
7:45 AM
0 7 1 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
2 0
0 0 0
7:00 AM 4 0
RT
29 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St California St California St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 1 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
0 1 0 59 0
Peak Hour 0 0 12 0
Count Total 0 0 23 0 0 2 30 0 0 3 0 0 0
0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 32
0 0 0 7 29
8:45 AM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 31
8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 4
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 6 28
8:15 AM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 27
8:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 1 3
0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 9 0
7:45 AM 0 0 3 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
5 0
7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 4
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0
7:15 AM 0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 4

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St California St California St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.174 www.idaxdata.com
WB 4.9% 0.86
HV %: PHF
EB - -
WB 4.9% 0.86
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Date: 08/18/2020
Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
SB 2.9% 0.81

NEB - -
NB 2.3% 0.94
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
TOTAL 3.3% 0.89
Peak Hour
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
N
TEV: 659
PHF: 0.89
Center St
Pacific Ave
0 8
0 0
0 0
0 45
104
81 2
62 29
110
17 244
251
4 2
56 166
16 21
0 Pacific Ave
86 311
6 1
5 2
238
65 13
Pacific Ave
Center St
7 Center St
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.175 www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries
0 0
0 383
468
537
616
659
0 0
0 0
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 25 35
27 22
38 37
39 659
90 Hour
15-min
Total
Rolling
One
Southwest Total
7 10
W Cliff Dr
Northeastbound
Peak Hr 0 12 7 3 0 22 0 13 7
0 39 230
136
Count Total 0 18 9 5 0 22 17 0 76
8:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0
0 6
8:45 AM 0 3 4 2 0
0 2
0 5
7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0
5 0
8:00 AM 0 4 2 0 0
7 8:15 AM 0 3 1 1 0
0 7
1 0 3 4 0
7:15 AM 0 2 0 1 0
4 7:30 AM 0 3 0 1 0
3 3 12 7
2 0 1 3 0 1 1 1
Interval
22 HV%
0 - - - - -
0 1 0 2 4
0% 20%
7:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0
Start EB WB NB SB NEB Total East West North
HV
1,042
Peak
Hour
All
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
3%
0 5 7 0 0
0% 9% 4% 0% 0% 0%
2 185
169
8:45 AM
8:30 AM 1 11 44 1 3
0 21 44 1 5
7:45 AM
7:30 AM
79 72
7:15 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
148
157
8:15 AM
8:00 AM
142
7 11 0
0 3 5 15 0
0 0 0 0
0 7:00 AM
Interval Start

UT LT TH RT HR
0 0 0 0
Pacific Ave
Eastbound
Pacific Ave
Westbound

UT LT BL TH RT
0 Center St
Northbound

UT HL 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
1 10 26 0 1
1 8 43 1 4
0 12 37 1 5
1 12 41 1 3
4 90 287 7 22
2 56 166 4 16
5 21 0 0
0 11 31 2 1
RT
1 0 0 6 25
0 0 1 7 16
0 2 1 8 23
0 0 0 18 50
1 2 0 21 59
0 0 0 8 59
0 2 1 19 57
0 1 1 17 63
7 4 104 352
1 5 2 65 238
3% 2%
Center St
Southbound

UT LT TH BR RT
0 1 7 6 0
0 1 4 5 0
0 1 9 8 0
0 0 7 10 0
0 1
0 6 10 14 0
0 1 7 22 2
0 14 56 91 2
0 11 29 62 2
0 0 1 2 0
- 0% 3% 3% 0%

UT HL BL BR HR
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 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 3
3 0 2 1 0 3 8 2 0 12
Total EB WB NB SB NEB
0 0
South
8 9 4 2 4
6 0 6 1 0 3 9 1 1 8
4 0 3 2 0 0 3
8 10 7 3 10
2 0 1 1 0 6 14 4 0 13
5 0 3 3 0
9 0 3 2 0 4 12 5 2 16
0 20 21 45 17 6 47
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) 32 0 36 75 31 12
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.176 www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
0 0
0 10
14 16
14 22
0 0
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
0 0
0 19
22 25
22 20
0 0 20 0
Count Total 0 0 0 39
Peak Hour 0 0 6 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
8:15 AM 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 6
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 3
7:45 AM 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0
2 0 0 0 0 7
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
7 7:15 AM 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 3
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 5
0 0 0 0
0 Rolling
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Northeastbound One UT
7:00 AM 0
RT UT RT UT HR Hour
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4
Count Total 0 0 0
0 0
32 Peak Hour 0
0 0 0
22 Interval Start
Pacific Ave Pacific Ave Center St Center St W Cliff Dr
0 0 4 0 0 0 0
RT UT
15-min
Total
0 0 5 0
5 8:30 AM 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
2 8:45 AM 0
0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 9
8:15 AM 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2
7:45 AM 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
1 8:00 AM 0
0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0
UT HR
0 0
2 7:15 AM 0
0 0 0
3 7:30 AM 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0
Rolling
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Northeastbound One LT TH RT LT BL TH HL LT TH LT TH BR Hour
0 Interval Start
UT HR
15-min
Total
4 Pacific Ave Pacific Ave Center St Center St W Cliff Dr

HL BL BR
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT RT UT RT RT
0 0 0 0
UT
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 7 11 0 1 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 7 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0

LT TH RT HR UT LT BL TH HL LT TH LT TH BR HL BL BR
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3 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 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 20 2 0 0 5
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.177 www.idaxdata.com
WB 1.0% 0.92
HV %: PHF
EB - -
WB 1.0% 0.92
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
Date: 08/18/2020
Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
SB 0.0% 0.91

NEB - -
NB 1.7% 0.95
Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM
TOTAL 1.1% 0.95
Peak Hour
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
N
TEV: 1,199
PHF: 0.95
Center St
Pacific Ave
0 9
0 0
0 0
0 53
261
133
3 135
99 240
27 418
387
3 1
116
280
18 48
0 Pacific Ave
222
520
14 7
3 33
115362
22 Pacific Ave
Center St
12 Center St
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.178 www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries
0 0
0 1,198
1,199
1,182
1,195
1,159
0 0
0 0
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 33 42
62 56
49 48
33 1,199
290
Hour
15-min
Total
Rolling
One
Southwest Total
43 12
W Cliff Dr
Northeastbound
Peak Hr 0 4 9 0 0 13 0 22 12
0 65 366
193
Count Total 0 9 16 3 0 43 22 0 89
5:30 PM 0 0 2 1 0
0 10
5:45 PM 0 2 0 1 0
0 12
0 8
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 0
10 0
5:00 PM 0 1 2 0 0
6 5:15 PM 0 1 1 1 0
0 9
2 0 5 1 0
4:15 PM 0 2 3 0 0
1 4:30 PM 0 1 2 0 0
9 9 10 7
6 0 1 0 0 24 7 3
Interval
13 HV%
0 - - - - -
0 0 0 1 8
0% 0%
4:00 PM 0 2 4 0 0
Start EB WB NB SB NEB Total East West North
HV
2,357
Peak
Hour
All
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1%
0 3 1 0 0
0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%
9 266
303
5:45 PM
5:30 PM 0 31 72 1 5
1 32 56 1 5
4:45 PM
4:30 PM
314
292
4:15 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
297
293
5:15 PM
5:00 PM
302
21 35 0
1 8 22 28 0
0 0 0 0
0 4:00 PM
Interval Start

UT LT TH RT HR
0 0 0 0
Pacific Ave
Eastbound
Pacific Ave
Westbound

UT LT BL TH RT
0 Center St
Northbound

UT HL 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 29 78 1 5
0 26 63 0 5
0 33 66 1 1
2 31 88 1 2
4 248 557 7 37
1 116 280 3 18
38 61 1 7
1 28 73 1 7
RT
1 9 2 12 85
3 8 0 32 89
1 6 1 20 95
2 11 0 32 92
1 8 2 31 86
0 10 2 23 79
1 4 1 25 93
0 8 0 24 87
64 8 199 706
7 33 3 115 362
1% 2%
Center St
Southbound

UT LT TH BR RT
1 6 24 45 0
0 7 30 35 0
0 3 20 30 1
0 6 28 35 2
0 8
1 5 34 30 0
0 10 15 27 0
3 53 194 265 3
0 24 99 135 3
0 0 0 0 0
- 0% 0% 0% 0%

UT HL BL BR HR
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 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 3 6
5 0 7 2 0 9 9 7 4 4
Total EB WB NB SB NEB
0 0
South
19 18 4 3 18
3 0 4 5 0 11 16 9 3 17
3 0 6 4 0 0 4
19 10 7 6 7
3 0 6 6 0 15 12 6 2 13
3 0 10 0 0
3 0 4 4 0 1 11 6 3 12
0 34 48 53 27 14 51
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) 28 0 107 93 49 28
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.179 www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
0 0
0 16
13 11
11 12
0 0
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
0 0
0 26
34 35
37 39
0 0 34 0
Count Total 0 0 0 65
Peak Hour 0 0 10 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
5:15 PM 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 10
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 12
0 0 0 3 5
4:45 PM 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0
1 0 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
9 4:15 PM 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 9
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 10
0 0 0 0
0 Rolling
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Northeastbound One UT
4:00 PM 0
RT UT RT UT HR Hour
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Count Total 0 0 0
0 0
28 Peak Hour 0
0 0 0
13 Interval Start
Pacific Ave Pacific Ave Center St Center St W Cliff Dr
0 0 8 0 0 0 0
RT UT
15-min
Total
0 0 13 0
3 5:30 PM 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
3 5:45 PM 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1
4:45 PM 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
2 5:00 PM 0
0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0
UT HR
0 0
6 4:15 PM 0
0 0 0
5 4:30 PM 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
1 1
Rolling
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Northeastbound One LT TH RT LT BL TH HL LT TH LT TH BR Hour
0 Interval Start
UT HR
15-min
Total
3 Pacific Ave Pacific Ave Center St Center St W Cliff Dr

HL BL BR
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

UT RT UT RT RT
0 0 3 0
UT
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

LT TH RT HR UT LT BL TH HL LT TH LT TH BR HL BL BR
0 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 8 31 4 0 0 2
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.180 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 16
17 16
13 12
26 24
130
0 0 28 7 15 20 16 58
40 35
Peak Hour 12 17 0 3 32 14 14
Count Total 25 35 1 4 65 30 33 3 0 66 26 29
8:45 AM 4 9 0 1 14 5 7 0 0 12 7 6 1 10
0 9 7 3 8 8
4 8:30 AM 4 3 0 0 7 5 4 0
0 0 10 0 4 4
6 2
8:15 AM 4 2 0 0 6 5 5
4 0 0 7 3 2
2 7 6
8:00 AM 2 6 0 0 8 3
2 3 0 0 5 1
7 3 4
0 7:30 AM 4 3 0 3 10 4 2 0
1 0 5 4 4 8
0 6 4
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 2 6 0 0 8
0 6 3
HV% - 1% 4% 0% 0% - 0% 0%
3 1
7:15 AM 4 2 0 0 6 2 2
6 2 0 12 1 1
West North South
7:00 AM 1 4 1
0 17 3 17 409 93 0 34 66 34 0 105 15
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 4% 1% 0% - 3% 0% 0% 3%
Peak
Hour
All 0 91 310
155 0 48 95 63 0
16 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 32 0
41 1,235 0
HV 0 1 11 0 0
Count Total 0 156 563 18 4 28 713 155 25 60 2,083 0
0 4 94 15 0 6 7 9 0 15 3 7 278 1,132
9 2 8 273 1,226
8:45 AM 0 25 93 0
19 0 5 8 11 0
289 1,235
8:30 AM 0 18 93 1 0 4 95
1 5 88 17 0 8 12 9 0 15 6 6
27 5 13 292 1,112
8:15 AM 0 29 85 8
18 0 14 7 8 0
372 951
8:00 AM 0 20 73 5 2 8 92
0 2 126 34 0 5 23 7 0 34 2 14
29 2 8 282 0
7:45 AM 0 23 99 3
24 0 7 24 10 0
166 0
7:30 AM 0 19 53 1 0 2 103
1 2 57 18 0 1 6 6 0 14 4 1
12 1 3 131 0
7:15 AM 0 14 42 0
7:00 AM 0 8 25 0 0 1 58 10 0 2 8 3 0

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Chestnut St Chestnut St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 11-19-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 1.9% 0.81
TOTAL 2.6% 0.83
TH RT
WB 3.3% 0.81
NB 0.0% 0.82
Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 2.9% 0.84
0 13
1 0
00 00
0 2
12 0
20 16
15 7
N
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Laurel St
Chestnut St
Laurel St Chestnut St
TEV: 1,235
PHF: 0.83
41 15
105
161
250
0 93
409
17 522
452
3 34
66 34
49 134
0 17
310
91 418
484
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.181 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. 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 4 0
0 7 0
1 13 0 0 12 2
1 28 1 0 29 4
0 4 0 0
0 0
0 2 0
3 LT TH
4 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
2 0 3
0 1
0 3 1
0 2 0
0 LT TH
0 0 0 0 0 0 28
0 1 2 0 66 0
0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 0
0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 12 38
9 31
8:45 AM
0 0 0 0
28 8:30 AM
0 0 0 0 0 0 10
7 23
8:15 AM
0 0 0
0 5 0
0 5 0
0 5 0
28 8:00 AM
0 0 0 5
6 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
2 0
0 2 1
7:00 AM 12 0
RT
32 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Chestnut St Chestnut St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
3 0 1 65 0
Peak Hour 0 1 11 0
Count Total 0 3 22 0 0 1 33 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 35
0 0 0 7 29
8:45 AM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 32
8:30 AM 0 2 2 0 0 0 3
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 8 32
8:15 AM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 30
8:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 6
0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 10 0
7:45 AM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0
7:30 AM 0 0 4 0 0 0 3
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 0
7:15 AM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 4

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Chestnut St Chestnut St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.182 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
36 28
25 17
19 37
27 27
216
3 2 42 18 23 33 26 100
71 62
Peak Hour 8 8 1 1 18 25 12
Count Total 28 21 2 2 53 55 24 4 5 88 33 50
5:45 PM 6 2 0 0 8 12 2 0 0 14 4 4 12 7
0 11 2 4 12 9
6 5:30 PM 2 1 0 0 3 6 5 0
0 0 8 6 10 15
3 5
5:15 PM 1 1 1 1 4 6 2
3 2 2 13 6 5
4 3 6
5:00 PM 4 3 0 0 7 6
7 2 1 0 10 4
6 7 8
12 4:30 PM 5 3 0 0 8 3 3 0
1 3 13 4 4 8
1 9 9
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 1 3 0 0 4
0 6 4
HV% - 0% 1% 0% - - 0% 3%
11 9
4:15 PM 6 4 0 0 10 6 3
4 0 0 13 3 13
West North South
4:00 PM 3 4 1
0 26 0 37 448 76 0 33 39 45 0 111 52
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 2% 0% 0% - 0% 2% 0% 1%
Peak
Hour
All 0 94 545
159 0 47 69 82 0
8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 18 0
78 1,584 0
HV 0 0 8 0 0
Count Total 0 184 1,009 43 0 77 830 230 96 134 2,960 0
0 5 83 20 0 2 12 6 0 29 10 10 321 1,526
24 11 18 404 1,584
5:45 PM 0 27 114 3
19 0 4 10 11 0
413 1,545
5:30 PM 0 24 161 8 0 6 108
0 13 105 17 0 16 13 16 0 35 15 16
26 12 19 388 1,472
5:15 PM 0 29 131 7
23 0 5 6 9 0
379 1,434
5:00 PM 0 23 122 6 0 13 124
0 5 111 17 0 8 10 9 0 26 14 25
27 13 21 365 0
4:45 PM 0 18 131 5
16 0 7 3 7 0
340 0
4:30 PM 0 18 126 5 0 10 112
0 12 88 24 0 2 6 12 0 35 8 17
28 13 8 350 0
4:15 PM 0 22 110 4
4:00 PM 0 23 114 5 0 13 99 23 0 3 9 12 0

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Chestnut St Chestnut St
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 11-19-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 0.4% 0.91
TOTAL 1.1% 0.96
TH RT
WB 1.4% 0.88
NB 0.9% 0.65
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.2% 0.86
2 23
0 0
11 01
2 2
9 1
33 26
23 18
N
Chestnut St
Laurel St
Laurel St
Chestnut St
Laurel St Chestnut St
TEV: 1,584
PHF: 0.96
78 52
111
241
209
0 76
448
37 561
701
0 33
39 45
115
117
0 26
545
94 665
559
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.183 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. 0 0
0 0 0
1 1 0
0 4 1
0 2 0
0 23 2 1 9 2
1 51 3 4 17 3
0 9 0 1
1 1
0 5 1
3 LT TH
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 5
0 0
0 3 0
1 2 0
1 LT TH
0 1 2 1 1 0 42
0 1 3 1 88 0
0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
Count Total 1 3
0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 14 46
11 42
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
37 5:30 PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 8
13 42
5:15 PM
0 1 1
0 6 0
0 6 0
1 1 0
42 5:00 PM
0 0 1 10
6 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 13
2 0
0 1 1
4:00 PM 13 0
RT
18 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Chestnut St Chestnut St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
1 1 0 53 0
Peak Hour 0 0 8 0
Count Total 0 1 27 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 22
0 0 0 3 18
5:45 PM 0 0 6 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 23
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 7 29
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 31
5:00 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 3
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 8 0
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0
4:30 PM 0 1 4 0 0 0 3
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 9 0
4:15 PM 0 0 6 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 4

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Chestnut St Chestnut St
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.184

SOQUEL AVE SOQUEL AVE FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 FRONT ST & SOQUEL AVE AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:45 AM - 09:00 AM
171 305
366
141
394 305
105
107

0.92 N
S
W E

0.72 0.92

0.84 0.82
(306) (480)
(535)
(237)
(175)
(176)
(617) (492) 20018
50 78
238
23 57
25 0
0 133
09230 66 SOQUEL AVE

SOQUEL AVE

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
47 18
14 15
N
S
W E 14 4
6 8
32 15 10 5
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 2 9 4 0 23 5 5 0 0 25 9 0 2 25 5 114 562 0 1 3 6 7:15 AM 0 1 8 3 0 25 7 1 0 2 35 7 0 4 29 2 124 664 0 2 2 3 7:30 AM 0 4 6 5 0 16 9 8 0 0 41 14 0 5 24 4 136 768 1 3 1 2 7:45 AM 0 5 19 5 0 36 26 8 0 4 40 10 0 3 28 4 188 877 4 1 4 5 8:00 AM 0 9 19 6 0 50 14 8 0 3 57 17 0 4 27 2 216 947 0 2 1 9 8:15 AM 0 7 20 4 0 66 16 15 0 3 45 13 0 5 31 3 228 9 8 6 4 8:30 AM 0 6 9 2 0 63 21 13 0 2 74 15 0 6 30 4 245 2 3 5 9 8:45 AM 0 3 9 11 0 59 27 14 0 1 54 21 0 3 45 11 258 3 4 2 16 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 25 53 20 223 74 49 0 0 9 219 58 18 108 20 0 876 Mediums 0 0 3 3 0 13 4 1 0 0 11 6 0 25 0 0 66
Total 0 25 57 23 238 78 50 0 0 9 230 66 18 133 20 947 0

29.185

LAUREL ST LAUREL ST FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 FRONT ST & LAUREL ST AM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
230 281
902
587
455 337
425
571

0.95 N
S
W E

0.88 0.87

0.91 0.95
(403) (471)
(1,488)
(899)
(987)
(655)
(725) (536) 34033
91 532
279
13 356
56 0
0 163
05134 198

LAUREL ST

LAUREL ST

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
16 21
19 16
N
S
W E 19 2
14 5
13 3
7 9
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 5 24 1 0 17 61 16 0 0 9 16 0 1 20 5 175 1,219 1 3 1 3 7:15 AM 0 5 44 2 0 36 72 4 0 1 23 14 0 5 26 13 245 1,494 2 2 2 7 7:30 AM 0 6 51 2 0 36 113 15 0 0 25 24 0 4 20 7 303 1,718 5 6 2 3 7:45 AM 0 9 98 5 0 68 176 16 0 1 30 43 0 10 34 6 496 1,894 3 2 5 3 8:00 AM 0 15 86 5 0 65 117 17 0 1 36 47 0 11 41 9 450 1,863 5 7 5 7 8:15 AM 0 18 91 1 0 71 117 32 0 0 26 57 0 9 39 8 469 3 6 5 4 8:30 AM 0 14 81 2 0 75 122 26 0 3 42 51 0 3 49 11 479 5 1 2 1 8:45 AM 0 13 72 5 0 65 119 32 0 1 37 49 0 8 40 24 465 0 8 3 3 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 12
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 55 348 13 274 519 91 0 0 4 129 187 31 150 30 0 1,831 Mediums 0 1 7 0 0 2 13 0 0 1 3 8 2 10 4 0 51
Total 0 56 356 13 279 532 91 0 0 5 134 198 33 163 34 1,894 0

29.186

SOQUEL AVE SOQUEL AVE FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 FRONT ST & SOQUEL AVE PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
415 387
526
386
712 424
277
157

0.91 N
S
W E

0.91 0.90

0.83 0.93
(736) (729)
(966)
(696)
(243)
(504)
(1,343) (805) 350 101
49 107
369
64 160
53 1
0 279
015285 124 SOQUEL AVE

SOQUEL AVE

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
143 49
51 60
N
S
W E 30 19
15 36
74 69 34 26
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 15 31 12 0 70 20 10 0 1 48 25 0 14 61 3 310 1,369 8 23 16 30 4:15 PM 0 8 32 11 0 80 9 11 0 2 81 39 0 22 63 6 364 13 12 17 23 1,510 4:30 PM 0 8 26 16 0 96 18 12 0 1 63 28 0 11 54 9 342 13 6 6 24 1,553 4:45 PM 0 14 41 13 1 99 8 6 0 1 66 26 0 14 56 8 353 1,628 8 11 8 36 5:00 PM 0 6 53 17 0 95 31 19 0 3 81 32 0 27 79 8 451 1,642 5 9 7 39 5:15 PM 0 15 35 21 1 101 26 13 0 6 56 23 0 30 68 12 407 9 7 10 25 5:30 PM 0 15 40 13 0 111 34 9 0 2 56 37 0 19 71 10 417 18 13 13 34 5:45 PM 0 17 32 13 0 62 16 8 0 4 92 32 0 25 61 5 367 13 19 19 30 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 53 159 64 361 107 48 1 0 15 268 119 101 265 35 0 1,596 Mediums 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 17 5 0 14 0 0 46
Total 0 53 160 64 369 107 49 15 285 124 101 279 35 1,642 1 0 0

29.187
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
9 13
24 15
15 22
21 33
152
9 1 42 31 26 8 8 73
21 16
Peak Hour 8 13 4 11 36 14 18
Count Total 22 21 9 22 74 23 44 18 3 88 57 58
8:45 AM 5 4 1 5 15 4 11 2 2 19 11 14 5 3
0 10 12 5 1 3
1 8:30 AM 1 3 1 1 6 4 5 1
2 1 13 8 10 3
0 2
8:15 AM 4 1 2 4 11 5 5
4 3 0 10 6 7
4 4 2
8:00 AM 1 2 0 4 7 3
2 4 3 0 9 5
12 6 2
1 7:30 AM 3 2 1 1 7 2 3 2
2 0 10 5 5 2
1 7 3
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 2 7 1 2 12
0 7 4
HV% - 31% 1% 0% - - 6% 6%
0 2
7:15 AM 4 0 1 4 9 0 8
4 3 0 10 6 1
West North South
7:00 AM 2 2 2
1 12 0 50 465 34 0 35 36 39 0 18 19
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
2% 2% 9% 0% - 6% 11% 36% 3%
Peak
Hour
All 0 16 373
60 0 66 61 58 0
9 3 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 8 36 0
22 1,119 0
HV 0 5 3 0 0
Count Total 0 26 591 15 0 67 826 26 37 37 1,870 0
0 5 113 4 0 8 9 8 0 4 6 6 247 1,032
4 6 5 276 1,119
8:45 AM 0 6 78 0
12 0 6 6 8 0
255 1,071
8:30 AM 0 2 100 5 0 13 109
0 6 104 11 0 7 17 8 0 4 3 5
7 5 8 254 967
8:15 AM 0 6 84 0
4 0 8 6 16 0
334 838
8:00 AM 0 4 86 3 0 13 94
0 18 158 7 0 14 7 7 0 3 5 4
1 6 4 228 0
7:45 AM 0 4 103 4
11 0 8 8 7 0
151 0
7:30 AM 0 1 62 3 0 5 112
0 3 73 7 0 9 4 2 0 2 4 2
1 2 3 125 0
7:15 AM 0 1 44 0
7:00 AM 0 2 34 0 0 4 63 4 0 6 4 2 0

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Pacific Ave Pacific Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 11-19-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 18.6% 0.74
TOTAL 3.2% 0.84
TH RT
WB 2.4% 0.75
NB 3.6% 0.86
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 2.0% 0.90
0 10
4 0
10 09
0 9
8 1
8 8
26 31
N
Pacific Ave
Laurel St
Laurel St
Pacific Ave
Laurel St Pacific Ave
TEV: 1,119
PHF: 0.84
22 19
18 59
86 0
34 465
50 549
430
0 35
36 39
81 110
0 12
373
16 401
522
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.188 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. 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 1 3
0 8 3
4 10 0 1 8 9
5 18 0 1 25 18
0 3 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
2 LT TH
2 2 0 3 0 0 0 0
2 0 3
0 0
0 2 2
0 5 3
0 LT TH
0 9 0 0 1 0 42
0 18 0 0 88 0
0 0
0 2
Peak Hour
Count Total 0 3
0 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 19 52
10 42
8:45 AM
0 1 0 0
39 8:30 AM
0 2 0 0 1 0 13
10 36
8:15 AM
0 3 0
3 2 0
1 3 0
0 4 1
36 8:00 AM
0 3 0 9
7 0
7:45 AM
0 2 0 0
0 7:30 AM
7:15 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10
2 1
0 1 3
7:00 AM 10 0
RT
36 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Pacific Ave Pacific Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 1 9 3 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 8

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
2 5 15 74 0
Peak Hour 0 5 3 0
Count Total 0 10 12 0 0 1 17 3 0 2 7 0 0
0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 15 39
0 0 1 6 36
8:45 AM 0 3 2 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
11 37
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2
1 0 3 7 35
8:15 AM 0 2 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
12 35
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
0 1 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 1 7 0
7:45 AM 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
9 0
7:30 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2
0 0 1 7 0
7:15 AM 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Pacific Ave Pacific Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.189 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
67 70
88 67
61 65
88 66
572
4 17 49 107 110 36 28 281
91 56
Peak Hour 10 2 3 11 26 18 10
Count Total 27 6 10 29 72 39 21 19 28 107 225 200
5:45 PM 5 1 1 3 10 9 4 1 3 17 25 17 19 5
4 8 27 46 11 4
10 5:30 PM 2 1 0 0 3 1 2 1
1 5 15 26 23 6
8 6
5:15 PM 1 0 2 4 7 7 2
2 0 4 9 22 25
16 11 8
5:00 PM 5 0 0 3 8 3
7 4 2 4 17 32
30 13 4
10 4:30 PM 4 1 2 2 9 2 0 5
5 3 17 24 18 18
4 11 4
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 1 1 4 8
2 9 41
HV% - 16% 1% 0% - - 0% 4%
5 9
4:15 PM 4 1 2 9 16 6 3
4 4 3 15 28 25
West North South
4:00 PM 4 1 2
0 24 0 40 459 50 0 33 73 44 0 57 40
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
0% 0% 4% 0% - 0% 8% 27% 2%
Peak
Hour
All 0 45 582
101 0 60 133 96 0
0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 8 26 0
30 1,477 0
HV 0 7 3 0 0
Count Total 0 88 1,066 57 0 95 889 96 86 71 2,838 0
0 16 92 9 0 9 17 19 0 10 9 9 329 1,433
17 14 8 367 1,477
5:45 PM 0 10 118 11
17 0 6 22 13 0
375 1,441
5:30 PM 0 8 137 6 0 11 108
0 7 117 12 0 13 17 11 0 9 7 6
11 10 8 362 1,439
5:15 PM 0 12 157 7
12 0 10 18 7 0
373 1,405
5:00 PM 0 16 136 5 0 10 119
0 12 115 9 0 4 16 13 0 20 9 8
7 9 14 331 0
4:45 PM 0 9 152 6
19 0 4 17 13 0
373 0
4:30 PM 0 13 109 7 0 13 106
0 11 132 10 0 5 14 5 0 12 12 11
10 16 7 328 0
4:15 PM 0 8 142 11
4:00 PM 0 12 115 4 0 15 100 13 0 9 12 15 0

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

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Pacific Ave Pacific Ave
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
Date: 11-19-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 8.7% 0.81
TOTAL 1.8% 0.98
TH RT
WB 0.4% 0.97
NB 2.0% 0.91
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.5% 0.92
1 14
3 2
132
04 0
3 7
0 36
28 110
107
N
Pacific Ave
Laurel St
Laurel St
Pacific Ave
Laurel St Pacific Ave
TEV: 1,477
PHF: 0.98
30 40
57 127
168
0 50
459
40 549
683
0 33
73 44
104
150
0 24
582
45 651
522
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.190 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. 2 0
1 3 0
1 3 0
0 1 1
0 3 1
3 14 1 0 7 3
8 28 3 1 16 4
0 4 0 1
0 1
2 3 0
0 LT TH
3 0 0 4 0 0 3 0
4 0 3
2 0
0 2 0
0 3 0
0 LT TH
0 4 0 2 13 2 49
0 17 2 3 107 0
3 1
0 3
Peak Hour
Count Total 2 23
0 2 7 0 0 0 1 0 17 49
8 49
5:45 PM
0 1 0 0
50 5:30 PM
0 1 0 0 4 1 15
9 52
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 7 0
1 0 0
0 2 0
58 5:00 PM
0 2 0 17
9 0
4:45 PM
0 5 0 0
0 4:30 PM
4:15 PM 3 0 4 1 0 2 1 17
0 0
0 2 2
4:00 PM 15 0
RT
26 0
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Pacific Ave Pacific Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 8

LT TH RT RT LT TH RT
3 9 17 72 0
Peak Hour 0 7 3 0
Count Total 0 14 13 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 9 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 10 28
0 0 0 3 26
5:45 PM 0 2 3 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
7 32
5:30 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2
0 0 3 8 41
5:15 PM 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 44
5:00 PM 0 4 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
0 0 2 9 0
4:45 PM 0 1 1 0
1 0 0 2 0 0
16 0
4:30 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 3
1 1 2 11 0
4:15 PM 0 1 3 0
0 0 0 2 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Laurel St Laurel St Pacific Ave Pacific Ave
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 29.191 Roundabout Counts
2020 Counts (8/18/2020) 2019 Counts (11/20/2019)
Peak Peak
Hour SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total Hour SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total AM 16 33 15 29 241 36 14 46 31 34 229 6 730 AM 19 47 16 40 485 35 15 64 43 38 348 16 1166 1.597 PM 19 98 35 31 446 64 39 61 61 76 422 15 1367 PM 44 112 58 46 464 64 27 76 37 47 549 36 1560 1.141 Peak Peak
Hour SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total Hour SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Total AM 64 29 11 16 4 224 238 65 8 0 0 0 659 AM 102 46 18 26 6 358 380 104 13 0 0 0 1053 1.598 PM 138 99 24 18 3 397 362 115 43 0 0 0 1199 PM 157 113 27 21 3 453 413 131 49 0 0 0 1367 1.140 Center Street/Laurel Street Center Street/Laurel Street Center Street/Pacific Avenue Center Street/Pacific Avenue Factor
Factor

29.192

LAUREL ST LAUREL ST FRONT ST FRONT ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 FRONT ST & LAUREL ST PM
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:15 PM - 04:30 PM
546 351
739
856
543 420
613
568

0.97 N
S
W E

0.94 0.88

0.91 0.95
(1,069) (662)
(1,486)
(1,701)
(1,138)
(1,205)
(1,080) (821) 143095
108
414
217
18 517
78 0
0 308
011165 244

LAUREL ST

LAUREL ST

FRONT ST

FRONT ST
48 32
26 41
N
S
W E 12 20
12 14
18 30 25 16
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 18 116 6 0 60 93 21 0 0 39 79 0 22 73 39 566 13 11 6 8 2,298 4:15 PM 0 18 141 3 0 58 114 29 0 2 50 64 0 18 67 31 595 10 6 6 11 2,318 4:30 PM 0 23 130 2 0 51 90 21 0 6 35 59 0 19 88 40 564 14 12 8 13 2,317 4:45 PM 0 18 125 8 0 55 103 31 0 0 34 61 0 29 73 36 573 2,316 6 2 5 18 5:00 PM 0 19 121 5 0 53 107 27 0 3 46 60 0 29 80 36 586 2,283 9 5 6 4 5:15 PM 0 15 129 6 0 70 124 22 0 2 23 72 0 30 66 35 594 4 9 10 11 5:30 PM 0 20 121 3 0 42 98 23 0 2 33 71 0 25 86 39 563 4 9 12 11 5:45 PM 0 32 120 6 0 54 106 34 0 3 31 46 0 14 65 29 540 10 10 7 4 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles on Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 77 511 18 215 407 105 0 0 11 163 239 93 305 140 0 2,284 Mediums 0 1 6 0 0 2 7 3 0 0 2 5 2 3 3 0 34
Total 0 78 517 18 217 414 108 11 165 244 95 308 143 2,318 0 0 0

29.193
Appendix B
Level of Service Calculations

29.194
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 348 38 35 485 40 43 64 15 16 47 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 348 38 35 485 40 43 64 15 16 47 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 378 41 38 527 43 47 70 16 17 51 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 30 607 66 57 651 53 611 574 131 598 490 202
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1658 180 1781 1706 139 1328 1473 337 1311 1259 518 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 0 419 38 0 570 47 0 86 17 0 72
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1838 1781 0 1845 1328 0 1810 1311 0 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 10.6 1.2 0.0 15.6 1.3 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 10.6 1.2 0.0 15.6 2.8 0.0 1.7 2.2 0.0 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 30 0 673 57 0 704 611 0 705 598 0 692 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.62 0.67 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 189 0 1269 221 0 1307 611 0 705 598 0 692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 0.0 14.7 27.0 0.0 15.6 11.8 0.0 11.0 11.8 0.0 11.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.4 0.0 0.9 12.9 0.0 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.7 0.0 6.1 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.0 0.0 15.6 39.9 0.0 17.9 12.1 0.0 11.4 11.8 0.0 11.3 LnGrp LOS D A B D A B B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 436 608 133 89
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.7 19.3 11.6 11.4
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 5.8 24.7 26.0 4.9 25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0 7.0 39.0 22.0 6.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 3.2 12.6 4.2 2.5 17.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.3 0.0 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B

29.195
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
2: Chestnut Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 91 310 17 20 409 93 34 66 34 105 15 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 91 310 17 20 409 93 34 66 34 105 15 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 337 18 22 445 101 37 72 37 114 16 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 127 721 611 35 493 112 170 331 432 160 22 162 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1475 335 624 1215 1585 1571 221 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 337 18 22 0 546 109 0 37 130 0 45 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1810 1839 0 1585 1792 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 10.1 0.5 0.9 0.0 21.5 3.4 0.0 1.3 5.3 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 10.1 0.5 0.9 0.0 21.5 3.4 0.0 1.3 5.3 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.34 1.00 0.88 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 721 611 35 0 604 501 0 432 183 0 162 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.47 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.90 0.22 0.00 0.09 0.71 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 155 725 614 131 0 677 501 0 432 445 0 394 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 17.2 14.3 36.4 0.0 23.8 21.0 0.0 20.3 32.5 0.0 31.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.6 0.5 0.0 17.1 0.0 14.5 1.0 0.0 0.4 5.1 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 4.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 11.0 1.6 0.0 0.5 2.5 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.8 17.7 14.3 53.6 0.0 38.3 22.0 0.0 20.7 37.6 0.0 32.0 LnGrp LOS D B B D A D C A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 454 568 146 175
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 38.9 21.7 36.2
Approach LOS C D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.4 6.0 32.8 11.6 9.8 29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.4 5.5 29.0 18.6 6.5 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 2.9 12.1 7.3 6.1 23.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.1
HCM 6th LOS C

29.196
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
3: California Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 243 58 158 356 0 102 0 211 0 1 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 243 58 158 356 0 102 0 211 0 1 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 264 63 172 387 0 111 0 229 0 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3 345 82 224 814 0 724 0 664 0 783 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.44 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1459 348 1781 1870 0 1415 0 1585 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 327 172 387 0 111 0 229 0 1 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1808 1781 1870 0 1415 0 1585 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.3 5.1 8.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 9.3 5.1 8.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3 0 428 224 814 0 724 0 664 0 783 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.77 0.48 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 178 0 889 584 1345 0 724 0 664 0 783 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) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 19.5 23.2 11.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 10.8 0.0 9.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.4 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 0.0 0.0 3.8 2.3 2.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 22.4 28.6 11.5 0.0 10.5 0.0 12.3 0.0 9.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A C C B A B A B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 327 559 340 1
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 16.7 11.7 9.3
Approach LOS C B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.0 10.9 17.0 27.0 0.0 27.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 18.0 27.0 23.0 5.5 39.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 7.1 11.3 2.0 0.0 10.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.8
HCM 6th LOS B

29.197
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 356 13 279 532 91 5 134 198 33 163 34 Future Volume (veh/h) 56 356 13 279 532 91 5 134 198 33 163 34 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 387 14 303 578 99 5 146 215 36 177 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 354 1437 52 351 766 649 9 311 263 49 352 299 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3498 126 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 196 205 303 578 99 5 146 215 36 177 37 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1848 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 5.9 5.9 13.3 21.3 3.2 0.2 5.7 10.5 1.6 6.8 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 5.9 5.9 13.3 21.3 3.2 0.2 5.7 10.5 1.6 6.8 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 354 730 759 351 766 649 9 311 263 49 352 299 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.86 0.75 0.15 0.53 0.47 0.82 0.74 0.50 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 354 730 759 541 766 649 88 441 374 88 441 374 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 26.8 15.7 15.7 31.3 20.3 15.0 40.0 30.4 32.4 38.9 29.3 27.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.9 0.9 8.8 6.8 0.5 40.0 1.1 9.2 19.1 1.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 2.5 2.6 6.4 10.1 1.2 0.2 2.6 4.6 1.0 3.1 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.9 16.6 16.6 40.1 27.2 15.5 80.0 31.5 41.6 58.0 30.4 27.4 LnGrp LOS C B B D C B E C D E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 462 980 366 250
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.1 30.0 38.1 34.0
Approach LOS B C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 17.4 19.9 37.1 4.4 19.2 20.0 37.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 19.0 24.5 24.5 4.0 19.0 16.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 12.5 15.3 7.9 2.2 8.8 4.3 23.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 2.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.2
HCM 6th LOS C

29.198
HCM 6th Roundabout Exist AM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 08/26/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 5.7
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 0 1 0 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 0 424 0 181
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 0 433 0 184
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 468 129 20 418
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 134 0 448 144
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.1
Approach LOS - A - A
Lane Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 433 184
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1210 901
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.984
Flow Entry, veh/h 424 181
Cap Entry, veh/h 1184 886
V/C Ratio 0.358 0.204
Control Delay, s/veh 6.5 6.1

LOS A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 2 1

29.199
HCM 6th Roundabout Exist AM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 08/26/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Approach NW
Entry Lanes 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 540
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 550
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 0
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 20
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.9
Approach LOS A
Lane Left Bypass
Designated Moves R R
Assumed Moves R R
RT Channelized Yield
Lane Util 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 421
Entry Flow, veh/h 129 1380
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1380 0.980
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 413
Flow Entry, veh/h 127 1353
Cap Entry, veh/h 1358 0.305
V/C Ratio 0.093 5.4
Control Delay, s/veh 3.4 A
LOS A 1
95th %tile Queue, veh 0

29.200
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
6: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 373 12 50 465 34 35 36 39 18 19 22 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 373 12 50 465 34 35 36 39 18 19 22 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 405 13 54 505 37 38 39 42 20 21 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 30 612 20 75 628 46 643 315 339 364 348 606
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1802 58 1781 1722 126 1361 824 887 675 911 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 0 418 54 0 542 38 0 81 41 0 24
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1860 1781 0 1848 1361 0 1711 1587 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 9.7 1.5 0.0 13.4 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 9.7 1.5 0.0 13.4 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.52 0.49 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 30 0 631 75 0 674 643 0 654 712 0 606 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.00 0.66 0.72 0.00 0.80 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 653 0 1099 653 0 1092 643 0 654 712 0 606 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.8 0.0 14.3 24.0 0.0 14.5 10.4 0.0 10.2 9.9 0.0 9.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.8 0.0 1.2 12.3 0.0 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 3.7 0.8 0.0 5.1 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.6 0.0 15.5 36.3 0.0 16.8 10.6 0.0 10.6 10.1 0.0 10.0 LnGrp LOS D A B D A B B A B B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 435 596 119 65
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.5 18.6 10.6 10.0
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 6.1 21.2 23.4 4.9 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.4 18.6 30.0 19.4 18.6 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 3.5 11.7 2.7 2.5 15.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.1 2.5 0.2 0.0 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.6
HCM 6th LOS B

29.201
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM
7: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 57 23 238 78 50 9 230 66 18 133 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 57 23 238 78 50 9 230 66 18 133 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 62 25 172 207 0 10 250 72 20 145 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 46 109 45 526 553 67 1350 374 567 812 123
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 822 1933 800 1781 1870 1585 47 2638 731 1058 1586 241 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 0 54 172 207 0 177 0 155 20 0 167 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1829 0 1726 1781 1870 1585 1845 0 1571 1058 0 1827 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.0 2.7 6.6 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.9 0.0 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 2.7 6.6 7.7 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.7 5.6 0.0 4.3 Prop In Lane 0.45 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.47 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 103 0 97 526 553 988 0 804 567 0 935 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.56 0.33 0.37 0.18 0.00 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 0 412 526 553 988 0 804 567 0 935 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.96 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 0.0 40.5 24.2 24.6 0.0 11.6 0.0 11.6 13.1 0.0 11.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.0 4.9 1.7 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 1.3 3.0 3.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.7 0.0 45.3 25.8 26.5 0.0 12.0 0.0 12.1 13.3 0.0 12.0 LnGrp LOS D A D C C B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 114 379 A 332 187
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.5 26.2 12.0 12.1
Approach LOS D C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.0 9.0 49.0 30.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 21.0 29.0 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 4.8 7.6 9.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 0.5 0.9 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

29.202
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 549 47 64 464 46 37 76 27 58 112 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 549 47 64 464 46 37 76 27 58 112 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 597 51 70 504 50 40 83 29 63 122 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 57 718 61 89 738 73 428 428 150 478 413 162
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.44 0.44 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1699 145 1781 1674 166 1215 1324 463 1281 1277 503 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 0 648 70 0 554 40 0 112 63 0 170 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1844 1781 0 1840 1215 0 1787 1281 0 1780 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 18.4 2.3 0.0 14.2 1.5 0.0 2.7 2.2 0.0 4.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 18.4 2.3 0.0 14.2 5.7 0.0 2.7 4.9 0.0 4.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 57 0 779 89 0 811 428 0 577 478 0 575 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.83 0.78 0.00 0.68 0.09 0.00 0.19 0.13 0.00 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 188 0 1255 273 0 1340 428 0 577 478 0 575 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.2 0.0 15.1 27.6 0.0 13.2 17.0 0.0 14.4 16.1 0.0 14.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.4 0.0 2.7 13.8 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 7.1 1.3 0.0 5.2 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.6 0.0 17.8 41.4 0.0 14.2 17.5 0.0 15.1 16.7 0.0 16.2 LnGrp LOS D A B D A B B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 687 624 152 233
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.1 17.2 15.7 16.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 7.0 28.8 23.0 5.9 29.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 9.0 40.0 19.0 6.2 42.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 4.3 20.4 6.9 3.3 16.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 4.5 0.9 0.0 4.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.7
HCM 6th LOS B

29.203
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
2: Chestnut Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 94 545 26 37 448 76 33 39 45 111 52 78 Future Volume (veh/h) 94 545 26 37 448 76 33 39 45 111 52 78 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 592 28 40 487 83 36 42 49 121 57 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 130 718 608 53 530 90 209 243 392 160 75 206 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1557 265 844 984 1585 1230 579 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 592 28 40 0 570 78 0 49 178 0 85 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1823 1828 0 1585 1809 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 22.5 0.9 1.8 0.0 23.7 2.6 0.0 1.9 7.5 0.0 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 22.5 0.9 1.8 0.0 23.7 2.6 0.0 1.9 7.5 0.0 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.46 1.00 0.68 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 130 718 608 53 0 621 452 0 392 236 0 206 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.82 0.05 0.76 0.00 0.92 0.17 0.00 0.13 0.76 0.00 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 147 723 613 113 0 670 452 0 392 424 0 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.0 21.9 15.2 38.0 0.0 25.0 23.4 0.0 23.1 33.1 0.0 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.6 7.7 0.0 19.6 0.0 17.1 0.8 0.0 0.7 4.9 0.0 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 10.7 0.3 1.0 0.0 12.5 1.2 0.0 0.8 3.5 0.0 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.5 29.6 15.3 57.6 0.0 42.0 24.2 0.0 23.7 38.0 0.0 32.8 LnGrp LOS E C B E A D C A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 722 610 127 263
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.0 43.1 24.0 36.3
Approach LOS C D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.5 6.8 34.3 14.3 10.3 30.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 5.0 30.5 18.5 6.5 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 3.8 24.5 9.5 6.4 25.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 2.0 0.8 0.0 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.4
HCM 6th LOS D

29.204
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
3: California Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 424 65 143 351 0 96 0 295 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 424 65 143 351 0 96 0 295 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 461 71 155 382 0 104 0 321 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3 556 86 199 989 0 601 0 540 0 637 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.53 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1583 244 1781 1870 0 1418 0 1585 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 532 155 382 0 104 0 321 0 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1826 1781 1870 0 1418 0 1585 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 16.3 5.2 7.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 16.3 5.2 7.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3 0 642 199 989 0 601 0 540 0 637 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.78 0.39 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 160 0 1017 385 1277 0 601 0 540 0 637 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) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 18.1 26.4 8.5 0.0 14.3 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 3.3 6.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.8 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 0.0 0.0 6.7 2.4 2.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 21.4 32.8 8.8 0.0 15.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A C C A A B A C A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 532 537 425 0
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.4 15.7 19.8 0.0
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.8 10.8 25.5 24.8 0.0 36.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.8 13.2 34.0 20.8 5.5 41.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.2 7.2 18.3 0.0 0.0 9.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.9
HCM 6th LOS B

29.205
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 517 18 217 414 108 11 165 244 95 308 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 517 18 217 414 108 11 165 244 95 308 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 562 20 236 450 117 12 179 265 103 335 155 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 347 1326 47 280 638 541 21 364 309 132 481 408 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3500 124 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 285 297 236 450 117 12 179 265 103 335 155 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1848 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 9.7 9.8 10.6 17.1 4.3 0.6 7.0 13.3 4.7 13.3 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 9.7 9.8 10.6 17.1 4.3 0.6 7.0 13.3 4.7 13.3 6.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 347 673 700 280 638 541 21 364 309 132 481 408 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.42 0.42 0.84 0.71 0.22 0.58 0.49 0.86 0.78 0.70 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 347 673 700 445 638 541 87 433 367 195 547 464 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 27.9 18.9 18.9 33.6 23.4 19.2 40.3 29.4 31.9 37.3 27.6 25.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 1.9 1.9 8.1 6.4 0.9 22.8 1.0 15.9 11.4 3.3 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 4.2 4.4 5.1 8.3 1.7 0.4 3.2 6.3 2.4 6.2 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.6 20.8 20.7 41.7 29.9 20.1 63.2 30.4 47.8 48.7 30.9 25.7 LnGrp LOS C C C D C C E C D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 667 803 456 593
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 31.9 41.4 32.6
Approach LOS C C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 20.0 16.9 35.1 5.0 25.1 20.0 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 19.0 20.5 23.5 4.0 24.0 16.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 15.3 12.6 11.8 2.6 15.3 5.3 19.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.4 2.8 0.0 1.7 0.1 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.1
HCM 6th LOS C

29.206
HCM 6th Roundabout Exist PM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 08/26/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 0 1 0 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 0 518 0 323
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 0 528 0 329
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 657 199 30 559
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 231 0 627 168
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 8.4 0.0 10.2
Approach LOS - A - B
Lane Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 528 329
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1126 780
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 518 323
Cap Entry, veh/h 1105 765
V/C Ratio 0.469 0.422
Control Delay, s/veh 8.4 10.2

LOS A B
95th %tile Queue, veh 3 2

29.207
HCM 6th Roundabout Exist PM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 08/26/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Approach NW
Entry Lanes 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 644
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 657
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 0
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 30
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.1
Approach LOS A
Lane Left Bypass
Designated Moves R R
Assumed Moves R R
RT Channelized Yield
Lane Util 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 458
Entry Flow, veh/h 199 1380
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1380 0.980
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 449
Flow Entry, veh/h 195 1353
Cap Entry, veh/h 1352 0.332
V/C Ratio 0.144 5.6
Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 A
LOS A 1
95th %tile Queue, veh 1

29.208
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
6: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 582 24 40 459 50 33 73 44 57 40 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 45 582 24 40 459 50 33 73 44 57 40 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 633 26 43 499 54 36 79 48 62 43 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 68 737 30 62 680 74 481 372 226 350 218 541
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1784 73 1781 1659 179 1323 1089 662 730 640 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 0 659 43 0 553 36 0 127 105 0 33 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1857 1781 0 1838 1323 0 1751 1371 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 18.4 1.4 0.0 14.4 1.2 0.0 2.9 1.2 0.0 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 18.4 1.4 0.0 14.4 5.3 0.0 2.9 4.2 0.0 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.38 0.59 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 68 0 768 62 0 754 481 0 597 568 0 541 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.86 0.70 0.00 0.73 0.07 0.00 0.21 0.18 0.00 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 582 0 980 582 0 969 481 0 597 568 0 541 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 15.2 27.2 0.0 14.2 15.7 0.0 13.3 13.6 0.0 12.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.7 0.0 6.3 13.2 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 7.9 0.8 0.0 5.5 0.4 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 0.0 21.5 40.3 0.0 16.3 16.0 0.0 14.1 14.3 0.0 12.8 LnGrp LOS D A C D A B B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 708 596 163 138
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 18.0 14.5 13.9
Approach LOS C B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 6.0 27.5 23.4 6.2 27.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.4 18.6 30.0 19.4 18.6 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 3.4 20.4 6.2 3.5 16.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.1 3.2 0.5 0.1 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.4
HCM 6th LOS B

29.209
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM
7: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 160 64 370 107 49 15 285 124 101 279 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 160 64 370 107 49 15 285 124 101 279 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 174 70 259 316 0 16 310 135 110 303 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 81 250 104 466 489 70 1117 466 456 782 98
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 662 2040 852 1781 1870 1585 55 2327 972 945 1629 204 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 0 141 259 316 0 249 0 212 110 0 341 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1837 0 1717 1781 1870 1585 1826 0 1527 945 0 1834 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 0.0 6.9 11.1 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.0 0.0 10.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 0.0 6.9 11.1 13.2 0.0 7.0 0.0 7.4 14.4 0.0 10.5 Prop In Lane 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.64 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 225 0 210 466 489 920 0 733 456 0 880 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.67 0.56 0.65 0.27 0.00 0.29 0.24 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 459 0 429 466 489 920 0 733 456 0 880 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.94 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.1 0.0 36.9 28.1 28.9 0.0 13.7 0.0 13.8 18.2 0.0 14.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 0.0 3.7 4.7 6.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.3 0.0 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.5 0.0 3.1 5.2 6.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.6 1.6 0.0 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.3 0.0 40.6 32.8 35.4 0.0 14.4 0.0 14.8 19.4 0.0 15.9 LnGrp LOS D A D C D B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 302 575 A 461 451
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.0 34.2 14.6 16.8
Approach LOS D C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.2 14.8 46.2 27.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 22.0 31.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 9.4 16.4 15.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 1.4 2.3 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

29.210
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P AM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 12/10/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 348 43 36 485 40 65 70 22 16 48 19 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 348 43 36 485 40 65 70 22 16 48 19 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 378 47 39 527 43 71 76 24 17 52 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 30 596 74 58 651 53 610 531 168 585 493 199
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1631 203 1781 1706 139 1327 1363 430 1295 1267 512 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 0 425 39 0 570 71 0 100 17 0 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1834 1781 0 1845 1327 0 1793 1295 0 1778 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 10.8 1.2 0.0 15.6 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 10.8 1.2 0.0 15.6 3.5 0.0 2.0 2.5 0.0 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 30 0 670 58 0 704 610 0 698 585 0 693 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.63 0.68 0.00 0.81 0.12 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 189 0 1266 221 0 1307 610 0 698 585 0 693 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 0.0 14.8 27.0 0.0 15.6 12.1 0.0 11.1 12.0 0.0 11.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.4 0.0 1.0 12.9 0.0 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 4.1 0.7 0.0 6.1 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.0 0.0 15.8 39.9 0.0 17.9 12.5 0.0 11.6 12.1 0.0 11.3 LnGrp LOS D A B D A B B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 442 609 171 90
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.9 19.3 11.9 11.4
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.0 5.8 24.6 26.0 4.9 25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0 7.0 39.0 22.0 6.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 3.2 12.8 4.5 2.5 17.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 2.8 0.3 0.0 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.0
HCM 6th LOS B

29.211
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P AM
2: Chestnut Street & Laurel Street 12/10/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 91 312 17 20 420 104 34 66 34 107 15 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 91 312 17 20 420 104 34 66 34 107 15 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 99 339 18 22 457 113 37 72 37 116 16 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 127 747 633 35 503 124 161 314 410 162 22 163 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1448 358 624 1215 1585 1574 217 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 99 339 18 22 0 570 109 0 37 132 0 45 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1806 1839 0 1585 1792 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 10.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 22.6 3.5 0.0 1.3 5.4 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 10.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 22.6 3.5 0.0 1.3 5.4 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.34 1.00 0.88 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 747 633 35 0 628 475 0 410 185 0 163 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.45 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.91 0.23 0.00 0.09 0.71 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 154 747 633 130 0 698 475 0 410 444 0 393 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.3 16.6 13.7 36.5 0.0 23.3 21.9 0.0 21.1 32.6 0.0 31.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.8 0.4 0.0 17.2 0.0 14.8 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.1 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 4.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 11.5 1.6 0.0 0.5 2.5 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.1 17.0 13.7 53.7 0.0 38.2 23.1 0.0 21.6 37.7 0.0 32.0 LnGrp LOS D B B D A D C A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 456 592 146 177
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.7 38.8 22.7 36.2
Approach LOS C D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 6.0 34.0 11.7 9.8 30.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.4 5.5 30.0 18.6 6.5 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 2.9 12.0 7.4 6.1 24.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.0
HCM 6th LOS C

29.212
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P AM
3: California Street & Laurel Street 12/10/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 245 58 158 364 3 102 0 211 1 1 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 245 58 158 364 3 102 0 211 1 1 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 266 63 172 396 3 111 0 229 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3 348 82 224 809 6 737 0 663 369 339 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1462 346 1781 1854 14 1450 0 1585 647 809 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 329 172 0 399 111 0 229 2 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1808 1781 0 1868 1450 0 1585 1456 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.3 5.1 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 9.3 5.1 0.0 8.4 2.1 0.0 5.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3 0 430 224 0 815 737 0 663 707 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.49 0.15 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 178 0 888 583 0 1341 737 0 663 707 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) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 19.5 23.3 0.0 11.1 9.9 0.0 10.9 9.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.4 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 1.4 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 0.0 0.0 3.9 2.3 0.0 3.0 0.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 22.4 28.7 0.0 11.6 10.4 0.0 12.3 9.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A C C A B B A B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 329 571 340 2
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 16.7 11.7 9.3
Approach LOS C B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.0 10.9 17.1 27.0 0.0 28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 18.0 27.0 23.0 5.5 39.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 7.1 11.3 4.1 0.0 10.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.8
HCM 6th LOS B

29.213
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P AM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 12/10/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 360 13 281 532 91 5 145 202 33 165 34 Future Volume (veh/h) 56 360 13 281 532 91 5 145 202 33 165 34 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 391 14 305 578 99 5 158 220 36 179 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 352 1426 51 353 763 646 9 317 268 49 358 304 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.20 0.41 0.41 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3500 125 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 198 207 305 578 99 5 158 220 36 179 37 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1848 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 6.0 6.0 13.4 21.4 3.2 0.2 6.2 10.8 1.6 6.9 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 6.0 6.0 13.4 21.4 3.2 0.2 6.2 10.8 1.6 6.9 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 352 724 753 353 763 646 9 317 268 49 358 304 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.86 0.76 0.15 0.53 0.50 0.82 0.74 0.50 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 352 724 753 539 763 646 88 439 372 88 439 372 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 27.0 16.0 16.0 31.4 20.5 15.1 40.2 30.5 32.4 39.1 29.2 27.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.9 0.9 9.1 6.9 0.5 40.0 1.2 9.8 19.2 1.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 2.5 2.6 6.5 10.2 1.2 0.2 2.8 4.8 1.0 3.1 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.0 16.9 16.9 40.5 27.5 15.6 80.2 31.7 42.2 58.3 30.3 27.3 LnGrp LOS C B B D C B F C D E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 466 982 383 252
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 30.3 38.4 33.9
Approach LOS B C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 17.7 20.0 37.0 4.4 19.5 20.0 37.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 19.0 24.5 24.5 4.0 19.0 16.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 12.8 15.4 8.0 2.2 8.9 4.3 23.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 2.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.6
HCM 6th LOS C

29.214
HCM 6th Roundabout Exist+P AM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 12/10/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 5.8
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 0 1 0 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 0 429 0 204
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 0 438 0 208
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 492 130 37 418
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 134 0 455 150
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 6.6 0.0 6.5
Approach LOS - A - A
Lane Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 438 208
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1209 901
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 429 204
Cap Entry, veh/h 1183 883
V/C Ratio 0.362 0.231
Control Delay, s/veh 6.6 6.5

LOS A A
95th %tile Queue, veh 2 1

29.215
HCM 6th Roundabout Exist+P AM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 12/10/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Approach NW
Entry Lanes 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 541
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 551
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 0
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 37
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.9
Approach LOS A
Lane Left Bypass
Designated Moves R R
Assumed Moves R R
RT Channelized Yield
Lane Util 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 421
Entry Flow, veh/h 130 1380
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1380 0.980
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 413
Flow Entry, veh/h 128 1353
Cap Entry, veh/h 1359 0.305
V/C Ratio 0.094 5.4
Control Delay, s/veh 3.4 A
LOS A 1
95th %tile Queue, veh 0

29.216
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P AM
6: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street 12/10/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 377 12 50 465 34 35 36 39 18 19 23 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 377 12 50 465 34 35 36 39 18 19 23 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 410 13 54 505 37 38 39 42 20 21 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 36 617 20 75 627 46 640 313 337 362 347 603
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1803 57 1781 1722 126 1360 824 887 675 911 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 0 423 54 0 542 38 0 81 41 0 25
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1860 1781 0 1848 1360 0 1711 1587 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 9.9 1.5 0.0 13.5 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 9.9 1.5 0.0 13.5 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.52 0.49 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 36 0 637 75 0 673 640 0 651 709 0 603 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.66 0.72 0.00 0.81 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 650 0 1094 650 0 1087 640 0 651 709 0 603 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.8 0.0 14.3 24.1 0.0 14.6 10.5 0.0 10.3 10.0 0.0 9.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.1 0.0 1.2 12.4 0.0 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 3.7 0.9 0.0 5.1 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.9 0.0 15.5 36.5 0.0 16.9 10.7 0.0 10.7 10.2 0.0 10.1 LnGrp LOS D A B D A B B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 444 596 119 66
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.6 18.7 10.7 10.1
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 6.1 21.5 23.4 5.0 22.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.4 18.6 30.0 19.4 18.6 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 3.5 11.9 2.7 2.6 15.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.1 2.5 0.2 0.0 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.7
HCM 6th LOS B

29.217
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P AM
7: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 12/10/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 57 23 240 78 50 9 236 74 18 134 21 Future Volume (veh/h) 28 57 23 240 78 50 9 236 74 18 134 21 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 62 25 173 208 0 10 257 80 20 146 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 51 109 45 526 553 65 1323 396 556 805 127
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 889 1886 781 1781 1870 1585 43 2591 775 1043 1577 248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 0 55 173 208 0 186 0 161 20 0 169 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1826 0 1730 1781 1870 1585 1847 0 1563 1043 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 2.7 6.7 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.9 0.0 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 2.7 6.7 7.8 0.0 4.7 0.0 5.0 5.9 0.0 4.4 Prop In Lane 0.49 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.50 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 0 100 526 553 986 0 798 556 0 932 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.56 0.33 0.38 0.19 0.00 0.20 0.04 0.00 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 436 0 413 526 553 986 0 798 556 0 932 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.4 0.0 40.4 24.2 24.6 0.0 11.7 0.0 11.7 13.4 0.0 11.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.0 4.8 1.7 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 1.3 3.0 3.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.6 0.0 45.2 25.9 26.5 0.0 12.1 0.0 12.3 13.5 0.0 12.0 LnGrp LOS D A D C C B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 117 381 A 347 189
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.4 26.2 12.2 12.2
Approach LOS D C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.9 9.1 48.9 30.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 21.0 29.0 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 4.9 7.9 9.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

29.218
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P PM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 549 69 67 464 46 47 79 30 58 117 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 549 69 67 464 46 47 79 30 58 117 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 597 75 73 504 50 51 86 33 63 127 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 57 709 89 94 764 76 408 404 155 456 406 153
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.46 0.46 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1629 205 1781 1674 166 1210 1287 494 1273 1293 489 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 39 0 672 73 0 554 51 0 119 63 0 175 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1834 1781 0 1840 1210 0 1781 1273 0 1782 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 19.8 2.5 0.0 14.2 2.0 0.0 3.0 2.3 0.0 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 19.8 2.5 0.0 14.2 6.5 0.0 3.0 5.3 0.0 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 57 0 798 94 0 839 408 0 559 456 0 560 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.00 0.84 0.78 0.00 0.66 0.12 0.00 0.21 0.14 0.00 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 182 0 1212 265 0 1302 408 0 559 456 0 560 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.0 0.0 15.2 28.3 0.0 12.8 18.3 0.0 15.3 17.2 0.0 15.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.8 0.0 3.5 13.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.0 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 7.8 1.3 0.0 5.2 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.0 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.8 0.0 18.7 41.3 0.0 13.7 18.9 0.0 16.1 17.8 0.0 17.3 LnGrp LOS D A B D A B B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 711 627 170 238
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.0 16.9 17.0 17.4
Approach LOS C B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 7.2 30.3 23.0 5.9 31.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 9.0 40.0 19.0 6.2 42.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 4.5 21.8 7.3 3.3 16.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 4.6 0.9 0.0 4.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.3
HCM 6th LOS B

29.219
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P PM
2: Chestnut Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 94 556 26 37 453 81 33 39 45 122 52 78 Future Volume (veh/h) 94 556 26 37 453 81 33 39 45 122 52 78 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 604 28 40 492 88 36 42 49 133 57 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 130 724 613 52 530 95 204 238 383 173 74 216 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1544 276 844 984 1585 1265 542 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 604 28 40 0 580 78 0 49 190 0 85 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1821 1828 0 1585 1807 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 23.5 0.9 1.8 0.0 24.6 2.7 0.0 1.9 8.1 0.0 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 23.5 0.9 1.8 0.0 24.6 2.7 0.0 1.9 8.1 0.0 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.46 1.00 0.70 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 130 724 613 52 0 625 442 0 383 247 0 216 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.83 0.05 0.76 0.00 0.93 0.18 0.00 0.13 0.77 0.00 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 724 613 111 0 660 442 0 383 416 0 365 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.6 22.3 15.4 38.7 0.0 25.4 24.1 0.0 23.8 33.4 0.0 31.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 8.4 0.0 20.2 0.0 18.9 0.9 0.0 0.7 5.1 0.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 11.3 0.3 1.1 0.0 13.3 1.2 0.0 0.8 3.8 0.0 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.9 30.6 15.4 58.8 0.0 44.3 25.0 0.0 24.5 38.5 0.0 32.8 LnGrp LOS E C B E A D C A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 734 620 127 275
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.0 45.2 24.8 36.7
Approach LOS C D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 6.9 35.1 15.0 10.3 31.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.4 5.0 30.6 18.5 6.5 29.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 3.8 25.5 10.1 6.5 26.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.0 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.7
HCM 6th LOS D

29.220
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P PM
3: California Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 432 65 143 355 1 96 0 295 3 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 432 65 143 355 1 96 0 295 3 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 470 71 155 386 1 104 0 321 3 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 3 564 85 199 992 3 612 0 536 431 0 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.53 0.53 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1587 240 1781 1865 5 1464 0 1585 930 0 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 541 155 0 387 104 0 321 3 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1827 1781 0 1869 1464 0 1585 930 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 16.7 5.2 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 16.7 5.2 0.0 7.5 2.5 0.0 10.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 3 0 650 199 0 995 612 0 536 431 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.78 0.00 0.39 0.17 0.00 0.60 0.01 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 159 0 1009 382 0 1266 612 0 536 431 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) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 18.2 26.6 0.0 8.5 14.3 0.0 16.9 15.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 3.6 6.5 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 4.9 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 0.0 0.0 6.9 2.4 0.0 2.6 1.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 21.8 33.1 0.0 8.7 14.9 0.0 21.8 15.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A C C A A B A C B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 541 542 425 3
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.8 15.7 20.1 15.3
Approach LOS C B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.8 10.9 25.9 24.8 0.0 36.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.8 13.2 34.0 20.8 5.5 41.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.4 7.2 18.7 4.7 0.0 9.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.1
HCM 6th LOS B

29.221
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P PM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 519 18 225 414 108 11 170 246 95 319 143 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 519 18 225 414 108 11 170 246 95 319 143 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 564 20 245 450 117 12 185 267 103 347 155 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 347 1306 46 289 637 540 21 367 311 132 483 409 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.37 0.37 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3501 124 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 286 298 245 450 117 12 185 267 103 347 155 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1848 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 9.9 9.9 11.0 17.2 4.3 0.6 7.3 13.4 4.7 13.9 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 9.9 9.9 11.0 17.2 4.3 0.6 7.3 13.4 4.7 13.9 6.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 347 663 689 289 637 540 21 367 311 132 483 409 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.43 0.43 0.85 0.71 0.22 0.58 0.50 0.86 0.78 0.72 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 347 663 689 444 637 540 87 432 366 195 546 463 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 28.0 19.3 19.3 33.4 23.5 19.3 40.4 29.5 31.9 37.4 27.8 25.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 2.0 2.0 9.0 6.5 0.9 22.9 1.1 16.2 11.4 3.9 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 4.3 4.4 5.3 8.3 1.7 0.4 3.3 6.4 2.4 6.5 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.7 21.3 21.2 42.4 30.0 20.2 63.3 30.6 48.1 48.8 31.7 25.6 LnGrp LOS C C C D C C E C D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 669 812 464 605
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.3 32.3 41.5 33.1
Approach LOS C C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 20.1 17.3 34.7 5.0 25.2 20.0 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 19.0 20.5 23.5 4.0 24.0 16.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 15.4 13.0 11.9 2.6 15.9 5.3 19.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.4 2.8 0.0 1.7 0.1 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.6
HCM 6th LOS C

29.222
HCM 6th Roundabout Exist+P PM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 12/23/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 0 1 0 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 0 538 0 334
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 0 549 0 341
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 669 205 38 559
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 231 0 631 195
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 8.8 0.0 10.5
Approach LOS - A - B
Lane Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 549 341
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1120 780
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981
Flow Entry, veh/h 538 334
Cap Entry, veh/h 1097 765
V/C Ratio 0.490 0.437
Control Delay, s/veh 8.8 10.5

LOS A B
95th %tile Queue, veh 3 2

29.223
HCM 6th Roundabout Exist+P PM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 12/23/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Approach NW
Entry Lanes 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 650
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 663
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 0
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 38
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.1
Approach LOS A
Lane Left Bypass
Designated Moves R R
Assumed Moves R R
RT Channelized Yield
Lane Util 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 458
Entry Flow, veh/h 205 1380
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1380 0.980
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 449
Flow Entry, veh/h 201 1353
Cap Entry, veh/h 1353 0.332
V/C Ratio 0.149 5.6
Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 A
LOS A 1
95th %tile Queue, veh 1

29.224
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P PM
6: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 584 24 40 459 50 33 73 44 57 40 33 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 584 24 40 459 50 33 73 44 57 40 33 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 635 26 43 499 54 36 79 48 62 43 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 68 739 30 62 681 74 479 371 225 349 218 540
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1784 73 1781 1659 179 1320 1089 662 730 640 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 0 661 43 0 553 36 0 127 105 0 36 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1857 1781 0 1838 1320 0 1751 1370 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 18.4 1.4 0.0 14.5 1.2 0.0 2.9 1.2 0.0 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 18.4 1.4 0.0 14.5 5.3 0.0 2.9 4.2 0.0 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.38 0.59 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 68 0 769 62 0 754 479 0 596 567 0 540 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.86 0.70 0.00 0.73 0.08 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 582 0 978 582 0 968 479 0 596 567 0 540 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 15.2 27.2 0.0 14.2 15.7 0.0 13.4 13.6 0.0 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.9 0.0 6.4 13.2 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 7.9 0.8 0.0 5.5 0.4 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 0.0 21.6 40.4 0.0 16.3 16.0 0.0 14.2 14.3 0.0 12.9 LnGrp LOS D A C D A B B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 711 596 163 141
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.9 18.0 14.6 14.0
Approach LOS C B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 6.0 27.6 23.4 6.2 27.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.4 18.6 30.0 19.4 18.6 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 3.4 20.4 6.2 3.6 16.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.1 3.1 0.5 0.1 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5
HCM 6th LOS B

29.225
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Exist+P PM
7: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 160 64 378 107 49 15 288 128 101 284 38 Future Volume (veh/h) 54 160 64 378 107 49 15 288 128 101 284 38 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 174 70 264 322 0 16 313 139 110 309 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 82 250 104 466 489 69 1109 472 452 775 103
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 672 2034 849 1781 1870 1585 53 2313 985 939 1617 215 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 0 142 264 322 0 253 0 215 110 0 350 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1837 0 1718 1781 1870 1585 1827 0 1525 939 0 1832 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.4 0.0 6.9 11.3 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.1 0.0 10.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 0.0 6.9 11.3 13.5 0.0 7.2 0.0 7.5 14.6 0.0 10.8 Prop In Lane 0.37 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.65 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 225 0 211 466 489 920 0 731 452 0 878 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.67 0.57 0.66 0.28 0.00 0.29 0.24 0.00 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 459 0 429 466 489 920 0 731 452 0 878 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.94 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.1 0.0 36.9 28.2 29.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 13.9 18.3 0.0 14.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 0.0 3.7 4.9 6.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.5 0.0 3.1 5.3 6.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.7 1.6 0.0 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.3 0.0 40.6 33.1 35.8 0.0 14.5 0.0 14.8 19.6 0.0 16.1 LnGrp LOS D A D C D B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 303 586 A 468 460
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.0 34.6 14.6 16.9
Approach LOS D C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.2 14.8 46.2 27.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 22.0 31.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 9.4 16.6 15.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 1.4 2.4 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

29.226
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum PM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 965 65 56 823 58 62 94 56 133 77 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 965 65 56 823 58 62 94 56 133 77 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 1049 71 61 895 63 67 102 61 145 84 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 45 1042 71 78 1072 75 271 239 143 250 232 149 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.60 0.60 0.04 0.62 0.62 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1732 117 1781 1727 122 1251 1097 656 1223 1064 684 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 1120 61 0 958 67 0 163 145 0 138 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1849 1781 0 1848 1251 0 1752 1223 0 1747 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 53.0 3.0 0.0 35.9 4.2 0.0 7.1 10.2 0.0 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 53.0 3.0 0.0 35.9 10.1 0.0 7.1 17.3 0.0 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 45 0 1113 78 0 1147 271 0 382 250 0 381 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 1.01 0.78 0.00 0.84 0.25 0.00 0.43 0.58 0.00 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 113 0 1113 117 0 1147 271 0 382 250 0 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.6 0.0 17.5 41.7 0.0 13.2 33.5 0.0 29.7 37.1 0.0 29.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.6 0.0 28.5 17.1 0.0 5.5 2.2 0.0 3.5 9.4 0.0 2.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 28.0 1.7 0.0 14.5 1.4 0.0 3.3 3.7 0.0 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.3 0.0 46.1 58.8 0.0 18.6 35.7 0.0 33.1 46.6 0.0 31.9 LnGrp LOS E A F E A B D A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1153 1019 230 283
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.6 21.1 33.9 39.4
Approach LOS D C C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.2 7.9 57.0 23.2 6.2 58.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.2 5.8 53.0 19.2 5.6 53.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.1 5.0 55.0 19.3 3.6 37.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.0
HCM 6th LOS D

29.227
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum PM
2: Chestnut Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 111 982 91 79 866 28 141 59 95 26 72 76 Future Volume (veh/h) 111 982 91 79 866 28 141 59 95 26 72 76 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 121 1067 99 86 941 30 153 64 103 28 78 83 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 145 1101 933 103 1019 32 192 80 238 37 103 120 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.59 0.59 0.06 0.57 0.57 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1803 57 1274 533 1585 488 1358 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 121 1067 99 86 0 971 217 0 103 106 0 83 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1860 1807 0 1585 1846 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 70.8 3.6 6.2 0.0 61.5 15.0 0.0 7.7 7.3 0.0 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 70.8 3.6 6.2 0.0 61.5 15.0 0.0 7.7 7.3 0.0 6.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.71 1.00 0.26 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 145 1101 933 103 0 1052 272 0 238 139 0 120 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.97 0.11 0.83 0.00 0.92 0.80 0.00 0.43 0.76 0.00 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 153 1125 954 103 0 1067 272 0 238 263 0 226 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.7 25.5 11.7 60.5 0.0 25.6 53.2 0.0 50.0 58.8 0.0 58.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.1 19.5 0.0 41.8 0.0 12.9 21.3 0.0 5.6 8.2 0.0 7.0 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 5.1 35.5 1.3 4.0 0.0 29.7 8.4 0.0 3.4 3.7 0.0 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.8 45.0 11.7 102.2 0.0 38.5 74.4 0.0 55.7 67.0 0.0 65.4 LnGrp LOS F D B F A D E A E E A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1287 1057 320 189
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.6 43.7 68.4 66.3
Approach LOS D D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.5 12.0 80.3 13.8 15.1 77.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 7.5 78.0 18.5 11.1 74.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 8.2 72.8 9.3 10.7 63.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 3.6 0.5 0.0 5.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.3
HCM 6th LOS D

29.228
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum PM
3: California Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 828 30 168 752 20 35 224 326 23 169 29 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 828 30 168 752 20 35 224 326 23 169 29 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 900 33 183 817 22 38 243 354 25 184 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 21 932 34 217 1142 31 78 344 355 56 239 38
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.12 0.63 0.63 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1793 66 1781 1813 49 144 1535 1585 53 1068 172 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 12 0 933 183 0 839 281 0 354 241 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1859 1781 0 1862 1679 0 1585 1292 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 43.2 9.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 19.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 43.2 9.0 0.0 27.1 13.7 0.0 19.9 16.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.03 0.14 1.00 0.10 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 21 0 966 217 0 1172 422 0 355 334 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.97 0.84 0.00 0.72 0.67 0.00 1.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 110 0 979 220 0 1172 422 0 355 334 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) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.9 0.0 20.7 38.4 0.0 11.1 31.9 0.0 34.6 32.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.6 0.0 20.8 24.6 0.0 2.1 8.1 0.0 46.8 12.6 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 0.4 0.0 22.5 5.3 0.0 10.3 6.4 0.0 12.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.5 0.0 41.5 63.0 0.0 13.2 39.9 0.0 81.4 44.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D E A B D A F D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 945 1022 635 241
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.8 22.1 63.0 44.6
Approach LOS D C E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 14.9 50.4 24.0 5.0 60.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 11.0 47.0 20.0 5.5 52.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.9 11.0 45.2 18.8 2.6 29.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 6.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.7
HCM 6th LOS D

29.229
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum PM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 996 29 227 830 195 4 228 254 202 366 262 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 996 29 227 830 195 4 228 254 202 366 262 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 179 1083 32 247 902 212 4 248 276 220 398 285 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 238 1541 46 275 857 726 7 296 251 208 507 429 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3524 104 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179 546 569 247 902 212 4 248 276 220 398 285 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1852 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.6 30.0 30.0 16.3 55.0 10.0 0.3 15.4 19.0 14.0 23.7 19.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 30.0 30.0 16.3 55.0 10.0 0.3 15.4 19.0 14.0 23.7 19.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 777 809 275 857 726 7 296 251 208 507 429 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.90 1.05 0.29 0.54 0.84 1.10 1.06 0.79 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 777 809 318 857 726 59 296 251 208 507 429 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 50.1 27.4 27.4 49.8 32.5 20.3 59.6 49.0 50.5 53.0 40.5 38.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 5.3 5.1 24.4 45.4 1.0 49.6 18.6 86.1 78.8 8.0 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.5 13.6 14.2 9.1 34.8 3.9 0.2 8.7 13.5 10.8 11.9 7.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.8 32.7 32.5 74.2 77.9 21.3 109.3 67.6 136.6 131.8 48.5 42.7 LnGrp LOS E C C E F C F E F F D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1294 1361 528 903
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.8 68.4 104.0 67.0
Approach LOS D E F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 23.0 22.5 56.5 4.5 36.5 20.0 59.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 19.0 21.4 49.6 4.0 29.0 16.0 55.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.0 21.0 18.3 32.0 2.3 25.7 13.6 57.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 63.0
HCM 6th LOS E

29.230
HCM 6th Roundabout Cum PM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 08/26/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.7
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 0 1 0 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 0 737 0 446
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 0 752 0 456
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 711 204 38 704
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 449 0 673 252
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 13.0 0.0 19.5
Approach LOS - B - C
Lane Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 752 456
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1121 673
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.979
Flow Entry, veh/h 737 446
Cap Entry, veh/h 1099 659
V/C Ratio 0.671 0.678
Control Delay, s/veh 13.0 19.5

LOS B C
95th %tile Queue, veh 5 5

29.231
HCM 6th Roundabout Cum PM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 08/26/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Approach NW
Entry Lanes 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 797
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 813
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 0
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 38
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.2
Approach LOS A
Lane Left Bypass
Designated Moves R R
Assumed Moves R R
RT Channelized Yield
Lane Util 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 609
Entry Flow, veh/h 204 1380
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1380 0.980
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 597
Flow Entry, veh/h 200 1353
Cap Entry, veh/h 1353 0.441
V/C Ratio 0.148 7.0
Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 A
LOS A 2
95th %tile Queue, veh 1

29.232
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum PM
6: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 162 1075 44 64 982 91 59 96 44 97 59 63 Future Volume (veh/h) 162 1075 44 64 982 91 59 96 44 97 59 63 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 176 1168 48 70 1067 99 64 104 48 105 64 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 199 1229 51 89 1058 98 49 217 100 130 57 284 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.69 0.69 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1784 73 1781 1686 156 1258 1211 559 502 317 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 176 0 1216 70 0 1166 64 0 152 169 0 68 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1857 1781 0 1842 1258 0 1770 818 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.3 0.0 86.8 5.7 0.0 92.4 0.0 0.0 11.4 15.0 0.0 5.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.3 0.0 86.8 5.7 0.0 92.4 26.4 0.0 11.4 26.4 0.0 5.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.32 0.62 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 199 0 1280 89 0 1156 49 0 317 186 0 284 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.95 0.79 0.00 1.01 1.31 0.00 0.48 0.91 0.00 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 0 1280 225 0 1156 49 0 317 186 0 284 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.5 0.0 20.6 69.2 0.0 27.4 73.6 0.0 54.3 66.9 0.0 51.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.9 0.0 14.8 14.0 0.0 28.6 232.3 0.0 5.1 45.2 0.0 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 8.1 0.0 39.9 3.0 0.0 47.5 5.0 0.0 5.6 8.8 0.0 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.4 0.0 35.4 83.1 0.0 56.0 306.0 0.0 59.4 112.1 0.0 53.8 LnGrp LOS F A D F A F F A E F A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1392 1236 216 237
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.6 57.6 132.4 95.4
Approach LOS D E F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.4 11.4 105.5 30.4 20.5 96.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.4 18.6 93.0 26.4 19.2 92.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.4 7.7 88.8 28.4 16.3 94.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 59.0
HCM 6th LOS E

29.233
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum PM
7: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 08/26/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 262 44 498 314 79 46 523 243 193 649 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 262 44 498 314 79 46 523 243 193 649 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 285 48 441 481 0 50 568 264 210 705 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 93 365 64 410 430 63 754 484 282 832 97
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 647 2536 445 1781 1870 1585 46 1489 956 660 1645 191 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 216 0 193 441 481 0 459 0 423 210 0 787 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1838 0 1790 1781 1870 1585 961 0 1530 660 0 1836 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 0.0 10.3 23.0 23.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 18.8 31.8 0.0 37.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 0.0 10.3 23.0 23.0 0.0 48.2 0.0 18.8 50.6 0.0 37.1 Prop In Lane 0.35 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.62 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 264 0 258 410 430 526 0 774 282 0 929 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.75 1.08 1.12 0.87 0.00 0.55 0.75 0.00 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 331 0 322 410 430 526 0 774 282 0 929 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.73 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.5 0.0 41.1 38.5 38.5 0.0 21.2 0.0 16.8 34.2 0.0 21.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.0 0.0 7.3 66.4 79.6 0.0 13.8 0.0 2.0 16.4 0.0 9.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.0 0.0 5.0 17.4 19.8 0.0 8.6 0.0 6.8 6.2 0.0 17.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.6 0.0 48.4 104.9 118.1 0.0 35.0 0.0 18.9 50.6 0.0 30.8 LnGrp LOS D A D F F D A B D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 409 922 A 882 997
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.1 111.8 27.3 34.9
Approach LOS D F C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.6 18.4 54.6 27.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 18.0 47.0 23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 50.2 13.4 52.6 25.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 57.0
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

29.234
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 965 87 59 823 58 72 97 59 133 82 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 965 87 59 823 58 72 97 59 133 82 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 1049 95 64 895 63 78 105 64 145 89 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 45 1022 93 82 1081 76 260 232 141 238 232 141 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.60 0.60 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1690 153 1781 1727 122 1245 1088 663 1216 1090 661 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 1144 64 0 958 78 0 169 145 0 143 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1843 1781 0 1848 1245 0 1751 1216 0 1751 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 53.4 3.1 0.0 35.5 5.1 0.0 7.4 10.4 0.0 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 53.4 3.1 0.0 35.5 11.2 0.0 7.4 17.8 0.0 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.38
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 45 0 1115 82 0 1157 260 0 373 238 0 373 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 1.03 0.78 0.00 0.83 0.30 0.00 0.45 0.61 0.00 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 113 0 1115 117 0 1157 260 0 373 238 0 373 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.7 0.0 17.4 41.7 0.0 12.8 34.6 0.0 30.3 38.0 0.0 29.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.7 0.0 33.8 18.8 0.0 5.1 2.9 0.0 3.9 11.0 0.0 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 29.7 1.8 0.0 14.2 1.7 0.0 3.5 3.8 0.0 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.4 0.0 51.3 60.4 0.0 17.9 37.5 0.0 34.2 49.1 0.0 32.7 LnGrp LOS E A F E A B D A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1177 1022 247 288
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.6 20.6 35.2 41.0
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.8 8.1 57.4 22.8 6.2 59.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.8 5.8 53.4 18.8 5.6 53.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 5.1 55.4 19.8 3.6 37.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.4
HCM 6th LOS D

29.235
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM
2: Chestnut Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 111 993 91 79 871 33 141 59 95 37 72 76 Future Volume (veh/h) 111 993 91 79 871 33 141 59 95 37 72 76 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 121 1079 99 86 947 36 153 64 103 40 78 83 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 144 1122 951 101 1031 39 184 77 228 50 98 128 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.60 0.60 0.06 0.58 0.58 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1790 68 1274 533 1585 623 1216 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 121 1079 99 86 0 983 217 0 103 118 0 83 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1858 1807 0 1585 1839 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 76.0 3.7 6.7 0.0 66.4 16.3 0.0 8.3 8.8 0.0 7.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 76.0 3.7 6.7 0.0 66.4 16.3 0.0 8.3 8.8 0.0 7.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.71 1.00 0.34 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 1122 951 101 0 1070 260 0 228 149 0 128 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.96 0.10 0.85 0.00 0.92 0.83 0.00 0.45 0.79 0.00 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 149 1167 989 101 0 1108 260 0 228 244 0 210 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.2 26.4 11.9 65.2 0.0 26.6 58.1 0.0 54.6 63.0 0.0 62.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 32.3 17.5 0.0 46.5 0.0 11.8 25.7 0.0 6.3 9.2 0.0 5.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 37.6 1.3 4.3 0.0 31.8 9.3 0.0 3.7 4.5 0.0 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 95.5 43.9 11.9 111.7 0.0 38.4 83.8 0.0 60.9 72.1 0.0 67.6 LnGrp LOS F D B F A D F A E E A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1299 1069 320 201
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.3 44.3 76.4 70.2
Approach LOS D D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.1 12.4 87.7 15.3 15.7 84.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.1 7.9 87.0 18.5 11.7 83.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.3 8.7 78.0 10.8 11.3 68.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 5.6 0.5 0.0 6.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.5
HCM 6th LOS D

29.236
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM
3: California Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 836 30 168 756 21 35 224 326 26 169 29 Future Volume (veh/h) 11 836 30 168 756 21 35 224 326 26 169 29 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 909 33 183 822 23 38 243 354 28 184 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 21 935 34 217 1143 32 77 335 354 57 223 36
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.12 0.63 0.63 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1794 65 1781 1811 51 139 1502 1585 54 999 159 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 12 0 942 183 0 845 281 0 354 244 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1859 1781 0 1861 1640 0 1585 1213 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 44.1 9.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 20.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 44.1 9.0 0.0 27.5 14.1 0.0 20.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.03 0.14 1.00 0.11 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 21 0 969 217 0 1175 412 0 354 316 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.97 0.84 0.00 0.72 0.68 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 109 0 975 219 0 1175 412 0 354 316 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) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.1 0.0 20.8 38.5 0.0 11.2 32.1 0.0 34.8 32.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.6 0.0 22.2 24.8 0.0 2.2 8.8 0.0 47.9 16.7 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 0.4 0.0 23.2 5.4 0.0 10.4 6.5 0.0 12.2 6.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.7 0.0 43.0 63.3 0.0 13.3 41.0 0.0 82.7 49.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A D E A B D A F D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 954 1028 635 244
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.4 22.2 64.3 49.5
Approach LOS D C E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 14.9 50.7 24.0 5.0 60.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 11.0 47.0 20.0 5.5 52.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 11.0 46.1 20.2 2.6 29.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 6.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.9
HCM 6th LOS D

29.237
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 998 29 235 830 195 4 233 256 202 377 262 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 998 29 235 830 195 4 233 256 202 377 262 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 179 1085 32 255 902 212 4 253 278 220 410 285 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 238 1525 45 283 857 726 7 296 251 208 507 429 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.43 0.43 0.16 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3525 104 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179 547 570 255 902 212 4 253 278 220 410 285 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1852 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.6 30.3 30.3 16.9 55.0 10.0 0.3 15.8 19.0 14.0 24.6 19.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 30.3 30.3 16.9 55.0 10.0 0.3 15.8 19.0 14.0 24.6 19.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 769 801 283 857 726 7 296 251 208 507 429 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.90 1.05 0.29 0.54 0.85 1.11 1.06 0.81 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 769 801 327 857 726 59 296 251 208 507 429 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 50.1 27.9 27.9 49.5 32.5 20.3 59.6 49.2 50.5 53.0 40.9 38.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 5.5 5.3 24.4 45.4 1.0 49.6 20.9 88.8 78.8 9.5 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.5 13.8 14.4 9.4 34.8 3.9 0.2 9.1 13.7 10.8 12.6 7.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.8 33.4 33.2 73.9 77.9 21.3 109.3 70.0 139.3 131.8 50.4 42.7 LnGrp LOS E C C E F C F E F F D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1296 1369 535 915
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.4 68.4 106.3 67.6
Approach LOS D E F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 23.0 23.1 55.9 4.5 36.5 20.0 59.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 19.0 22.0 49.0 4.0 29.0 16.0 55.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.0 21.0 18.9 32.3 2.3 26.6 13.6 57.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 63.7
HCM 6th LOS E

29.238
HCM 6th Roundabout Cum+P PM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 12/23/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 5
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.3
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 0 1 0 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 0 758 0 457
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 0 774 0 467
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 722 210 46 704
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 449 0 676 280
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 13.9 0.0 20.4
Approach LOS - B - C
Lane Left Left
Designated Moves LTR LTR
Assumed Moves LTR LTR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 774 467
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1114 673
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.979
Flow Entry, veh/h 758 457
Cap Entry, veh/h 1091 659
V/C Ratio 0.695 0.694
Control Delay, s/veh 13.9 20.4

LOS B C
95th %tile Queue, veh 6 6

29.239
HCM 6th Roundabout Cum+P PM
5: West Cliff Drive/Center Street & Pacific Avenue 12/23/2020 130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 6
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Approach NW
Entry Lanes 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 803
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 819
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 0
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 46
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.2
Approach LOS A
Lane Left Bypass
Designated Moves R R
Assumed Moves R R
RT Channelized Yield
Lane Util 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 609
Entry Flow, veh/h 210 1380
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1380 0.980
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 597
Flow Entry, veh/h 206 1353
Cap Entry, veh/h 1354 0.441
V/C Ratio 0.152 7.0
Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 A
LOS A 2
95th %tile Queue, veh 1

29.240
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM
6: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 163 1077 44 64 982 91 59 96 44 97 59 66 Future Volume (veh/h) 163 1077 44 64 982 91 59 96 44 97 59 66 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 177 1171 48 70 1067 99 64 104 48 105 64 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 200 1230 50 89 1057 98 49 217 100 129 57 284 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.69 0.69 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1784 73 1781 1686 156 1253 1211 559 502 316 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 177 0 1219 70 0 1166 64 0 152 169 0 72 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1857 1781 0 1842 1253 0 1770 818 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.4 0.0 87.4 5.7 0.0 92.4 0.0 0.0 11.4 15.0 0.0 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.4 0.0 87.4 5.7 0.0 92.4 26.4 0.0 11.4 26.4 0.0 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.32 0.62 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 0 1280 89 0 1155 49 0 317 186 0 284 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.00 0.95 0.79 0.00 1.01 1.31 0.00 0.48 0.91 0.00 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 0 1280 225 0 1155 49 0 317 186 0 284 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.5 0.0 20.7 69.2 0.0 27.5 73.7 0.0 54.3 66.9 0.0 52.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 28.2 0.0 15.2 14.0 0.0 28.8 232.7 0.0 5.1 45.5 0.0 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.1 0.0 40.3 3.0 0.0 47.6 5.0 0.0 5.6 8.8 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.6 0.0 35.9 83.2 0.0 56.2 306.3 0.0 59.4 112.4 0.0 54.1 LnGrp LOS F A D F A F F A E F A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1396 1236 216 241
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.1 57.8 132.6 95.0
Approach LOS D E F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.4 11.4 105.6 30.4 20.5 96.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.4 18.6 93.0 26.4 19.2 92.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.4 7.7 89.4 28.4 16.4 94.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 59.3
HCM 6th LOS E

29.241
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM
7: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 262 44 506 314 79 46 526 247 193 654 78 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 262 44 506 314 79 46 526 247 193 654 78 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 285 48 446 487 0 50 572 268 210 711 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 93 361 63 421 442 60 741 491 276 839 100
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 654 2530 444 1781 1870 1585 46 1447 959 655 1639 196 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 216 0 194 446 487 0 463 0 427 210 0 796 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1838 0 1790 1781 1870 1585 923 0 1529 655 0 1835 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.6 0.0 11.4 26.0 26.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 20.8 35.2 0.0 41.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.6 0.0 11.4 26.0 26.0 0.0 55.3 0.0 20.8 56.0 0.0 41.1 Prop In Lane 0.36 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.63 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 263 0 256 421 442 509 0 783 276 0 939 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.76 1.06 1.10 0.91 0.00 0.55 0.76 0.00 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 334 0 326 421 442 509 0 783 276 0 939 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.72 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.8 0.0 45.3 42.0 42.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 18.2 37.2 0.0 23.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.5 0.0 7.5 60.4 73.3 0.0 17.9 0.0 2.0 17.7 0.0 9.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.6 0.0 5.6 18.3 20.8 0.0 9.9 0.0 7.6 6.9 0.0 19.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.3 0.0 52.8 102.4 115.3 0.0 42.4 0.0 20.2 54.9 0.0 32.5 LnGrp LOS E A D F F D A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 410 933 A 890 1006
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.7 109.1 31.7 37.2
Approach LOS E F C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 60.3 19.7 60.3 30.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 52.0 20.0 52.0 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 57.3 14.6 58.0 28.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 58.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

29.242
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM Miti
4: Front Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 998 29 235 830 195 4 233 256 202 377 262 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 998 29 235 830 195 4 233 256 202 377 262 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 179 1085 32 255 902 212 4 253 278 220 410 285 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 327 1205 36 289 917 215 8 326 534 245 576 779 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.16 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3525 104 1781 2856 671 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179 547 570 255 561 553 4 253 278 220 410 285 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1852 1781 1777 1750 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 25.5 25.5 12.2 27.3 27.4 0.2 11.3 12.3 10.6 16.9 9.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 25.5 25.5 12.2 27.3 27.4 0.2 11.3 12.3 10.6 16.9 9.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 327 608 633 289 570 562 8 326 534 245 576 779 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.98 0.98 0.53 0.78 0.52 0.90 0.71 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 327 608 633 290 570 562 82 386 585 245 576 779 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 32.3 27.3 27.3 35.7 29.4 29.4 43.3 34.4 23.2 37.0 26.8 13.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.5 18.8 18.2 25.3 33.8 34.4 47.5 8.1 0.8 31.9 4.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 13.5 14.0 7.2 16.5 16.4 0.2 5.7 4.5 6.7 7.9 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.8 46.1 45.5 61.0 63.2 63.8 90.8 42.5 24.0 68.9 30.9 14.0 LnGrp LOS D D D E E E F D C E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1296 1369 535 915
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.8 63.0 33.2 34.8
Approach LOS D E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 19.2 18.2 33.8 4.4 30.8 20.0 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 18.0 14.2 29.8 4.0 26.0 16.0 28.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.6 14.3 14.2 27.5 2.2 18.9 10.0 29.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.1 0.2 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.

29.243
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM Miti
6: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 163 1077 44 64 982 91 59 96 44 97 59 66 Future Volume (veh/h) 163 1077 44 64 982 91 59 96 44 97 59 66 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 177 1171 48 70 1067 99 64 104 48 105 64 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 200 1273 52 89 1098 102 150 186 86 141 123 139 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.71 0.71 0.05 0.65 0.65 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1784 73 1781 1686 156 1253 1211 559 1235 804 904 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 177 0 1219 70 0 1166 64 0 152 105 0 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1857 1781 0 1842 1253 0 1770 1235 0 1708 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 0.0 79.2 5.6 0.0 87.1 7.2 0.0 11.5 10.7 0.0 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 0.0 79.2 5.6 0.0 87.1 17.8 0.0 11.5 22.2 0.0 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.53
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 0 1325 89 0 1200 150 0 271 141 0 262 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.92 0.78 0.00 0.97 0.43 0.00 0.56 0.75 0.00 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236 0 1325 231 0 1229 150 0 271 141 0 262 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.3 0.0 17.3 68.0 0.0 24.0 64.6 0.0 56.8 67.8 0.0 56.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.1 0.0 10.5 13.8 0.0 19.0 8.6 0.0 8.1 29.7 0.0 7.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.0 0.0 34.5 2.9 0.0 41.7 2.7 0.0 5.8 5.1 0.0 5.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 90.4 0.0 27.8 81.8 0.0 43.0 73.2 0.0 64.9 97.5 0.0 63.6 LnGrp LOS F A C F A D E A E F A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1396 1236 216 241
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.7 45.2 67.4 78.4
Approach LOS D D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 11.3 107.3 26.2 20.3 98.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.2 18.8 97.0 22.2 19.2 96.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.8 7.6 81.2 24.2 16.2 89.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.1 9.9 0.0 0.1 5.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.1
HCM 6th LOS D

29.244
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cum+P PM Miti
7: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 262 44 506 314 79 46 526 247 193 654 78 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 262 44 506 314 79 46 526 247 193 654 78 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 285 48 550 341 0 50 572 268 210 711 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 356 312 53 691 374 54 614 449 251 765 91
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1560 263 3456 1870 1585 21 1316 963 655 1639 196 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 0 333 550 341 0 465 0 425 210 0 796 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1823 1728 1870 1585 771 0 1529 655 0 1835 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 16.1 13.6 16.1 0.0 5.2 0.0 18.5 23.5 0.0 36.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 16.1 13.6 16.1 0.0 42.0 0.0 18.5 42.0 0.0 36.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.63 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 356 0 365 691 374 404 0 713 251 0 856 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.91 0.80 0.91 1.15 0.00 0.60 0.84 0.00 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 356 0 365 691 374 404 0 713 251 0 856 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.1 0.0 35.2 34.3 35.2 0.0 20.8 0.0 17.7 35.4 0.0 22.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 26.7 9.2 28.8 0.0 85.4 0.0 2.5 26.9 0.0 17.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 9.7 6.5 10.1 0.0 15.0 0.0 6.6 6.5 0.0 18.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 0.0 61.9 43.5 64.0 0.0 106.3 0.0 20.2 62.4 0.0 40.4 LnGrp LOS C A E D E F A C E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 410 891 A 890 1006
Approach Delay, s/veh 56.0 51.3 65.1 45.0
Approach LOS E D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.0 22.0 46.0 22.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.0 18.0 42.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 44.0 18.1 44.0 18.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

29.245
HCM 6th TWSC Exist+P AM
24: Center Street & Project Driveway 12/10/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 35 122 5 7 120
Future Vol, veh/h 21 35 122 5 7 120
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 23 38 133 5 8 130
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 282 136 0 0 138 0
Stage 1 136 - - - - -
Stage 2 146 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 708 913 - - 1446 -
Stage 1 890 - - - - -
Stage 2 881 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 704 913 - - 1446 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 704 - - - - -
Stage 1 890 - - - - -
Stage 2 876 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.7 0 0.4

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 822 1446 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.074 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.7 7.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0 -

29.246
HCM 6th TWSC Exist+P PM
24: Center Street & Project Driveway 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 16 140 24 30 223
Future Vol, veh/h 10 16 140 24 30 223
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 17 152 26 33 242
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 473 165 0 0 178 0
Stage 1 165 - - - - -
Stage 2 308 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 550 879 - - 1398 -
Stage 1 864 - - - - -
Stage 2 745 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 535 879 - - 1398 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 535 - - - - -
Stage 1 864 - - - - -
Stage 2 725 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 0 0.9

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 705 1398 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.04 0.023 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.3 7.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -

29.247
Queues Exist AM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 08/31/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 419 38 570 47 86 17 72
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.59 0.19 0.73 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.10
Control Delay 30.5 17.6 30.2 19.4 16.5 14.1 16.9 12.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.5 17.6 30.2 19.5 16.5 14.1 16.9 12.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 88 10 136 8 12 3 8
Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 203 46 297 43 61 21 49
Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 234 924 122
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 195 1322 228 1360 536 743 529 735
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 163 0 149 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.36 0.17 0.47 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.10 Intersection Summary

29.248
Queues Exist PM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 08/31/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 648 70 554 40 112 63 170
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.79 0.32 0.65 0.11 0.19 0.15 0.29
Control Delay 35.8 23.2 34.5 16.6 22.9 19.3 23.0 20.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 35.8 23.7 34.5 16.9 22.9 19.3 23.0 20.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 227 28 168 13 29 20 49
Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 358 72 260 41 79 58 117
Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 234 924 122
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 184 1240 267 1311 374 586 407 585
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 233 0 290 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.64 0.26 0.54 0.11 0.19 0.15 0.29 Intersection Summary

29.249
Queues Exist+P AM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 12/10/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 425 39 570 71 100 17 73
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.59 0.17 0.71 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.11
Control Delay 28.1 16.8 26.8 17.2 17.0 14.2 17.1 13.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.1 16.8 26.8 17.3 17.0 14.2 17.1 13.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 78 9 118 11 13 3 8
Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 203 44 277 58 66 21 49
Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 234 562 122
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 218 1459 317 1544 500 692 488 688
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 127 0 127 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.32 0.12 0.40 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.11 Intersection Summary

29.250
Queues Exist+P PM
1: Center Street & Laurel Street 12/23/2020
130 Center Street TIA Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Inc. Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 672 73 554 51 119 63 175
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.80 0.34 0.63 0.14 0.21 0.16 0.30
Control Delay 36.3 23.8 35.3 16.1 23.6 19.7 23.6 21.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 36.3 24.5 35.3 16.5 23.6 19.7 23.6 21.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 241 30 168 17 32 21 53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 48 379 74 260 50 82 58 121
Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 234 924 122
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 181 1214 263 1294 361 576 398 576
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 237 0 307 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.69 0.28 0.56 0.14 0.21 0.16 0.30 Intersection Summary

29.251
Appendix C
Volume Spreadsheet

29.252
130 Center Street TIA AM Conditions
Intersection Number: 1
Synchro Node Number: 2947
Intersection Name: Center Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 19 47 16 40 485 35 15 64 43 38 348 16 1166 Project Trips 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 6 22 5 0 0 42
Existing + Project 19 48 16 40 485 36 22 70 65 43 348 16 1208 Intersection Number: 2
Synchro Node Number: 2946
Intersection Name: Chestnut Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 41 15 105 93 409 20 34 66 34 17 310 91 1235 Project Trips 0 0 2 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 26
Existing + Project 41 15 107 104 420 20 34 66 34 17 312 91 1261 Intersection Number: 3
Synchro Node Number: 2945
Intersection Name: California Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 0 1 0 0 356 158 211 0 102 58 243 0 1129 Project Trips 0 0 1 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14
Existing + Project 0 1 1 3 364 158 211 0 102 58 245 0 1143 11/19/19
08/21/20
11/20/19
08/21/20
11/19/19
08/21/20
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
12/23/2020
AM
130 Center St - Volume Spreadsheet_2020-12-10

29.253
130 Center Street TIA AM Conditions
Intersection Number: 4
Synchro Node Number: 2950
Intersection Name: Front Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 34 163 33 91 532 279 198 134 5 13 356 56 1894 Project Trips 0 2 0 0 0 2 4 11 0 0 4 0 23
Existing + Project 34 165 33 91 532 281 202 145 5 13 360 56 1917 Intersection Number: 5
Synchro Node Number: 2964
Intersection Name: Center Street/Cliff Drive & Pacific Avenue Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 102 46 18 26 6 358 380 104 13 0 0 0 1053 Project Trips 0 6 15 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 26
Existing + Project 102 52 33 30 6 358 380 105 13 0 0 0 1079 Intersection Number: 6
Synchro Node Number: 2949
Intersection Name: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 22 19 18 34 465 50 39 36 35 12 373 16 1119 Project Trips 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 8
Existing + Project 23 19 18 34 465 50 39 36 35 12 377 19 1127 Intersection Number: 7
Synchro Node Number: 2953
Intersection Name: Front Street & Soquel Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 20 133 18 50 78 238 66 230 9 23 57 25 947 Project Trips 1 1 0 0 0 2 8 6 0 0 0 3 21
Existing + Project 21 134 18 50 78 240 74 236 9 23 57 28 968 08/21/20
05/14/19
08/21/20
08/21/20
05/14/19
08/18/20
08/21/20
11/19/19
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
12/23/2020
AM
130 Center St - Volume Spreadsheet_2020-12-10

29.254
130 Center Street TIA PM Conditions
Intersection Number: 1
Synchro Node Number: 2947
Intersection Name: Center Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 44 112 58 46 464 64 27 76 37 47 549 36 1560 Project Trips 0 5 0 0 0 3 3 3 10 22 0 0 46
Existing + Project 44 117 58 46 464 67 30 79 47 69 549 36 1606 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 50 77 133 58 823 56 56 94 62 65 965 30 2469 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 50 82 133 58 823 59 59 97 72 87 965 30 2515 Intersection Number: 2
Synchro Node Number: 2946
Intersection Name: Chestnut Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 78 52 111 76 448 37 45 39 33 26 545 94 1584 Project Trips 0 0 11 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 32
Existing + Project 78 52 122 81 453 37 45 39 33 26 556 94 1616 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 76 72 26 28 866 79 95 59 141 91 982 111 2626 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 76 72 37 33 871 79 95 59 141 91 993 111 2658 Intersection Number: 3
Synchro Node Number: 2945
Intersection Name: California Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 351 143 295 0 96 65 424 0 1374 Project Trips 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 16
Existing + Project 0 0 3 1 355 143 295 0 96 65 432 0 1390 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 29 169 23 20 752 168 326 224 35 30 828 11 2615 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 29 169 26 21 756 168 326 224 35 30 836 11 2631 08/21/20
08/21/20
11/19/19
08/21/20
11/19/19
11/20/19
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
12/23/2020
PM
130 Center St - Volume Spreadsheet_2020-12-10

29.255
130 Center Street TIA PM Conditions
Intersection Number: 4
Synchro Node Number: 2950
Intersection Name: Front Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 143 308 95 108 414 217 244 165 11 18 517 78 2318 Project Trips 0 11 0 0 0 8 2 5 0 0 2 0 28
Existing + Project 143 319 95 108 414 225 246 170 11 18 519 78 2346 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 262 366 202 195 830 227 254 228 4 29 996 165 3758 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 262 377 202 195 830 235 256 233 4 29 998 165 3786 Intersection Number: 5
Synchro Node Number: 2964
Intersection Name: Center Street/Cliff Drive & Pacific Avenue Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 157 113 27 21 3 453 413 131 49 0 0 0 1367 Project Trips 0 3 7 19 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 34
Existing + Project 157 116 34 40 3 453 413 136 49 0 0 0 1401 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 214 162 34 62 172 444 549 166 18 0 0 0 1821 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 214 165 41 81 172 444 549 171 18 0 0 0 1855 Intersection Number: 6
Synchro Node Number: 2949
Intersection Name: Pacific Avenue & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 30 40 57 50 459 40 44 73 33 24 582 45 1477 Project Trips 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6
Existing + Project 33 40 57 50 459 40 44 73 33 24 584 46 1483 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 63 59 97 91 982 64 44 96 59 44 1075 162 2836 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 66 59 97 91 982 64 44 96 59 44 1077 163 2842 Intersection Number: 7
Synchro Node Number: 2953
Intersection Name: Front Street & Soquel Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Scenario: 130 Center Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 35 279 101 49 107 370 124 285 15 64 160 53 1642 Project Trips 3 5 0 0 0 8 4 3 0 0 0 1 24
Existing + Project 38 284 101 49 107 378 128 288 15 64 160 54 1666 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 75 649 193 79 314 498 243 523 46 44 262 70 2996 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 78 654 193 79 314 506 247 526 46 44 262 71 3020 08/21/20
11/19/19
08/21/20
05/14/19
08/21/20
08/18/20
08/21/20
05/14/19
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
12/23/2020
PM
130 Center St - Volume Spreadsheet_2020-12-10

29.256
Appendix D
VMT Analysis Sketch Tool Summary

29.257

VMT CALCULATOR
Version 1.2 Build Date 11_02_20
VMT/Capita 4.2 0.0 4.2
TAZ# 787 Daily Trips 1,268 0 1,268

REDUCTIONS
Mixed-Use Adjustment
Project Name

VMT OUTPUT
Address
TAZ
Project Context/Setting

PROJECT INFORMATION
130 Center

36.96618, -122.02619
Suburban Center
ITE Trip Gen Land Use
Threshold (15% below Average)
Significant Impact?
Average (VMT/Capita) 10.2

PRESUMPTIONS OF LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Affordable Housing
Within a 1/2 mile of Major Transit Stop
Local Retail (<50,000 Sq Ft)
Less than 110 Trips per Day

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) STRATEGIES
VMT Land Use Type
Dwelling Unit(s)
Overridden by Presumption
No

8.7 County of Santa Cruz Threshold

LAND USE INFORMATION
Residential
221 | Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
233
0%
This tool is only intended for projects of 2,000 trips or less.

PROJ. WITH

PROJECT MITIGATION
SEARCH LOCATION RESET 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 VMT per Capita Project Project with Mitigation Threshold

PARKING STRATEGIES TRANSIT STRATEGIES COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION STRATEGIES COMMUTING STRATEGIES

SHARED MOBILITY STRATEGIES BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT STRATEGIES MISCELLANEOUS STRATEGIES

29.258

29.259

29.260

29.261

29.262

29.263

29.264

29.265

29.266

29.267

29.268

29.269

29.270

29.271

29.272

29.273

29.274

29.275

29.276

29.277

29.278

29.279

29.280

29.281

29.282

29.283

29.284

29.285

29.286

29.287

29.288

29.289

29.290

29.291

29.292

29.293

29.294

29.295

29.296

29.297

29.298

29.299

29.300

29.301

29.302

29.303

29.304

29.305

29.306

29.307

29.308

29.309

29.310

29.311

29.312

29.313

29.314

29.315

29.316

29.317

29.318

29.319

29.320

29.321

29.322

29.323

29.324

29.325

29.326

29.327

29.328
 






   




 




 !"#
$%!&$ 

"'()
!*+
,-$ $!!$$

&.
 !"#-/0

!$%!$12
3245 6 $$!+
7"(
..

29.329







 


   


! " ##$
%&
'()* %+('
,*%(+ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  %%&
'()* %* ,
+* -

,'. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  ,& %* /)'%*
%(+ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  & %* *(
(0',

1. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  )& 0(2(0. ,+/ (%2 *.
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  /& (*1' %* ,*-' ,+/ )(+*',%+* &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  %%%&
'()* *('
3,*'
'('
,+) )'%*'%, ,+/ /',%+,0
,+,0
+* &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 
,&
(* )(+*'-)*%(+ 

'4-%'
+* &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  &
'()* 5

*%(+ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  *%' 6 5

*%(+ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  *%' 7 5

*%(+ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 6 5

*%(+ '(
-%+0 )(+8+*%(+,2 *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 6
)& /',%+,0
,+,0
+* ,', &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 7 %8& %* /%0+ ,+/ *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 7 ,& %* /%0+ ,+/ '-+( '/-)*%(+
,-' 9*%' : &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 7 & *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' 9*%' : &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 7 *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-'  9)
;: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& < *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-'  9)
;: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& < *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' 6 9)
;6: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& < *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' 7 9)
;7: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& < *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' < 9)
;<: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& = *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' = 9)
;=: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& = *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' > 9)
;>: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& = *('
3,*' )(+*'(2
,-' ? 9)
;?: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& = 8& 

(
',*%(+ ,+/
,%+*+,+)
2,+ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& = ,& '(-*%+
,%+*+,+) ('
2,+*' ,+/ %(;%2*',*%(+ ,', &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& = & '(-*%+
,%+*+,+) ('
)1,+%),2 %2*',*%(+ .*
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& >
)& %),2 '(-') &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& > /& )'*%%),*%(+ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& > 8%& ,

+/%) &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& >

29.330







 


   


!"# $%
&'#$

() * + ,
 
- ./ 012

322)
4 0 50

() 6)
+ ,
 7 
 ,87 ,3 9:;
3 * <=+=;
* > 012 ?
@ ,2A 0AA3 


() 52 
/ 0)2

-/ .7 ,) B
=

() CD/ CD/



 E
 
 5  F
>> F/)
FG/
 5  C H FG/
 5 + F
>> F

-2
 5 I
J



 -2
5
()  3 K3)L :7;9  M A9 3)
5 3 > 6
/ 04/ K3)L :7;9  M A9 3)
5 * N21 >) 3 KGA >AL  
5 F2)/ N21 >) 3 IO7I M A 3) 5
=
() N21 >) 3 :7;9  M A9 3)
5
=
() N21 >) 3 IO7I M A 3)

)
 6N0 
/

6N0 5

PQ

,2
) Q/=/>)

 G/
5D 





K

L 
1
/ 4 D RSTUVWSXSYZ[ \]W Z^S _WS`aWaZV]Y ]\
bcdW]e]fc RS`]WZ[ \]W _W]gShZ[ iWSaZVYf ]W RS`eahVYf jTUae Z] ]W k]WS Z^aY lmnmmm oTUaWS pSSZ ]\ qX`SWrV]U[ sWSaA 5D 22 > D  


 2
  // D  G
2) > D 22/  21
A 




)) K

tL7  )
//
4 D ,>
  C H 3)
K,3H3L7 
/ 
/ 
D *
0
7  4 /
 21   G 
 /

)
)
A 6 2) /12
 >)  4
/

/ 
/ )
)/ 2 D G
 
/ 

 > D ,
 , F

 C
H / F
*A F+=+=+A 5D  


 2
 4()  1
 

// 4 D 2() 


A


!"# u#! 'uu!uu&!$# uv&&'
w
'
u#! x!u"
#
$
5D   )/  + ,
  

 ,8A 5D 2)  4
// 4 ,
  
D  
/ -

)) 
/ /
 /12
  D
D7  
/ DA
,
7 D   ))2/ 4  
= )) 4/

 D  
// 4
2D )
) 21
A

29.331







 


   


!"!#$%"&'
() *

+

 ,
 ) ,-.  

 ,

/ ) )  )
0) .
 / ) 1 2
// )
) ) *

  ..+  ,  ,


+ ,,+  ) 
.,  +
1
3 # !4!#' %56
!
4 '"

7..+

 )
.)
. , ,8++ 9 :

 ) ;,< )  .
 /
// 
.  ,,* =>? / 9 *

+ 
+ 
+
9 / .  
+,) / >? /1 () ,, .  
+
9 
9+++  / + //  /
 
+   
+   +,) / ,,* @ /1 () ?
+  

+
9  )
+ // 
.   =>? /1  ) +,)< + +

  ,>
++ 
+  
.
+   +,) / 9 A@>? /1 () 
+ 
/+ 9 + // 
.   +,) / 9 BC / 
+ 9 + //  //< 
,.    +,) / D@>? /1 () +, .  +   /+ 9 +
+
  
+ 
+ ,
++ 
+ +
 ) * +,) )  *,+  =D
/1
6 !& $

E %F$
%56 3!5
$%
5 )

+  +   +,) / ,,* C / 9 ) *


+ /. ).) .+ )8  

/.
 ,. 

+

+ .
.
/ )
,G


1

"$!H 3
!$IJ% $ " $E!$I%53 3$
$
% %56
6$%
5%# I%5%# I 5
%
"!
3!5
$F3
!5 I" $ KF
$ I 5

() 




..

 / ) :L  M





<
,  B   ) ,./. N
 / 



 
// / ,8

+ ,9. +8,
?+8,
 ,-.1 ()
 +8,
 )  )
N
 / (  
+ ( 1 ()  
//  9 + 9 )  / / )
)
,
< 9/
 
+ .)
. /
1 () ,-.  *, / ( A

+ ( B1

"$!H 3 O I"
!5

$ P O I"
!5

-. )  9-.+  ( A 
+ ( B , .
.


N
  N/
/ ,. ..
. 9+ 
.
 
+? .8

 .
+
1 () ,.
..
. 
.+ ,-. )  )

Q9

9 7 ) )8
 /.
,G

< )8   CDR .8
 / ) 
 ,-.  9 ,

 .< 
.+ )
1D  /  . 
 , 
+ )8  +
 /. /   / 
 1=D1

29.332







 


   

 
  !"
   #
   $ 


 
% &'


' ( 
  
 '! "$ $$
$)

 "*$  $ 


""! '

' + 
, 
  

, 
,,  ' 
 , "$ "! ,$ 
 ' -!
  
 " "*$

,, ! 
)  


 - , 

 !"
 
$

 
 

, 
 " "*$ 
,,)

 "*$  
" , 

 
-
)
./01 2 03045./67


 !"
 
!  "!  


 " !"
 $



$
 $ 
 
 , 
,, $

 , 
 )

,+ 

 8
-
 
 ""$' , 
 "*$)

   
,, , 
   '
$$ 
"" $ 


 
 #  
)
03045./67 9164 :;/7< =67>07./67?@ ;.614 A?.01 =67.16@ 40?;:10;

 "" '

,"
 $!  , 
  


 "$ ,
"


$
!

 ' 
 ,$   
,, , "! ) B

   
 
,, , 
 , 
" 
$
!

 
 + ,



"
 
!  ' $ 

 
 '

" 
$
"
,  $$)  ""

 , ,  $$ 

')

 "*$  $
 ,



"
  
 " !+
! 
 
 
 
"!  $
"$ 
    $$  '

, 


"
 '
 
") B


+ 
 , 


"
 

 $
 

 " $C *$
  


 
+  ! ' 
  D"
)  ""

8)

 
 #E 
D"
  
 
 , 


"
 $ 

 " 



'

"  $" , "
 $ 
""
"
)


"
  "!
 $$  $ 
    $$  - "$ , , 

,,$! , ""
$!)
  ""

F , , "
  , $
$
)
%$

 
 , 


"
  
 $
 , 
 " $C $ $
$
$


 , 


 
 "
 
 
 

+ 
 $ 
,'  

 "C


 ')

 "*$ $
 E

, '

 
,$ ' #
$




 "E    
  
,,) G!+ , 
 
 $
  

-!
 
 $"  %BD 
' ,

 
 " 
 H


I J #
 
#H)

' "!   $
 , 
 "E  


 '

,

 
,

 C 




 , 
 '

) G!+ 
 


 $

 

 
,




 '  $
' 
)  ""

K , 


$

$ ")

29.333







 


   

 

 
!

" # # " $%    !

 %$

# #
"
" 
 

%"
% #
   "  
##&
" % 
 ! "  # # "
" 
  " '
 #$& ' %!
# "
"

   
  " 
## #  ' ()**  # " $


# 


&
" # "
" 
  %

 "

 $% # 

 %%
 % 

& + $,#
    
  
## #  '
)(  # " 
%- &
.
## #  ' *(/* 0 # # "   $  $  - #  "
  # %"
% #
&
12 34567589 :57589:97; 5495<

"  




 /


 


  =>
+?& %" >
+  %#
 
 #
" #

@ 



  A B

 =B
?( #,

  #,



&
  " $ $ " ! "


 


 @
>
+
C
+D
+.+ 

EFE
G

.HGE.>

.+

F

+.+ =?

C.

A+
. BCF
.CD
+G.

.+

F

+.+
.CIE>>
=?
 (/JK  B
, DCA
L.CGML
D+F
. 
 (J J B
, DCA
L.CGML
D+F
. /)
* ( ) B
,* DCA
L.CGML
D+F
. /)
 (*) K B
, DCA
L.CGML
D+F
. /)
) )( K B
,) ECED
.+
ECF +.+ *J
N *(/* , B
,N
BL+FEB+D ED
.+
ECF ,
J K ** B
,J DCA
L.CGML
D+F
. ))
K K *) B
,K DCA
L.CGML
D+F
. ))
/ (JK) , B
,/ D
.+
EFM +.+ ,
6O2 <6;9 39<687 573 <;P4:Q5;94 1P7;4PR :95<S49<
52 <6;9 39<687 573 4S7PTT 493S1;6P7 :95<S49< U;694 VW

" '

  %


 




$
%  $ 
!
 " '

#$& F 


 % "
 $


#
# " &
"  

 
%