Agenda-Item-3-Attachment-II-Exhibit-E-Draft-and-Final-Environmental-Impact-Report — Sebastopol City Council, April 2, 2024 (part 6 of 8)

13 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Emergency Access
The final transportation bullet on the CEQA checklist requires an evaluation as to whether the project would result in inadequate emergency access or not.

Adequacy of Site Access
As noted above, the project site would be accessed by an existing private road that connects to Mill Station Road to the northwest of the project site and by the access easement via the southernmost drive aisle of the parking lot of the adjacent development as well as a new driveway on SR 116 at the end of the project access drive aisle to provide direct access from the project to the street. The project would include a small private internal street network with a minimum travel width of 24 feet. This network and the parking stalls located therein appear to be in accordance with City design standards. Site access and circulation is therefore expected to function acceptably for emergency response vehicles.

Additionally, the nominal increase in traffic volumes resulting from the project can reasonably be expected to result in similarly nominal changes to traffic delays in the area. Since emergency responders can claim the rightof-way through use of their lights and sirens, the addition of project-generated traffic would be expected to have little to no impact on emergency response times.

Significance Finding – The project would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency response.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 684 of 1220 ends

14 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.

The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Sixth Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2018. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.

The Levels of Services for the intersections with side street stop controls, or those which are unsignalized and have one or two approaches stop controlled, were analyzed using the “Two-Way Stop-Controlled” intersection capacity method from the HCM. The methodology determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating the average delay in seconds per vehicle. Results are presented for the stop-controlled approaches together with the weighted overall average delay for the intersection.

The study intersections that are currently or planned to be controlled by a traffic signal were evaluated using the signalized methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether the signals are coordinated or not, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity.

Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. For purposes of this study, delays were calculated using signal timing obtained from Caltrans. Adjustments were made to signal timing under Future conditions to account for changes in demand patterns that would be typically addressed by periodic retiming.

Intersections that are proposed to be controlled by modern roundabouts were evaluated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roundabout Method, also contained within the Unsignalized Methodology of the HCM. This methodology determines intersection operation using a gap acceptance method along with basic geometric and volume data to calculate entering and circulating flows. This information is then translated to average vehicle delays, with LOS break points at the same delays as used in the two-way stop-controlled methodology.

The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 5.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 685 of 1220 ends

15 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Table 5 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled Roundabout Signalized
A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds.

Gaps in traffic are readily available for drivers
exiting the minor street.

Delay of 0 to 10
seconds.

Delay of 0 to 10 seconds.

Most vehicles arrive during the green
phase, so do not stop at all.

B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds.

Gaps in traffic are somewhat less readily available
than with LOS A, but no queuing occurs on the
minor street.

Delay of 10 to 15
seconds.

Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More
vehicles stop than with LOS A, but
many drivers still do not have to stop.

C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable gaps in
traffic are less frequent, and drivers may
approach while another vehicle is already
waiting to exit the side street.

Delay of 15 to 25
seconds.

Delay of 20 to 35 seconds.

The number of vehicles stopping is
significant, although many still pass
through without stopping.

D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds.

There are fewer acceptable gaps in traffic, and
drivers may enter a queue of one or two vehicles
on the side street.

Delay of 25 to 35
seconds.

Delay of 35 to 55 seconds.

The influence of congestion is
noticeable, and most vehicles must
stop.

E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds.

Few acceptable gaps in traffic are available, and
longer queues may form on the side street.

Delay of 35 to 50
seconds.

Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not
all, vehicles must stop, and drivers
consider the delay excessive.

F Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivers may wait
for long periods before there is an acceptable
gap in traffic for exiting the side streets, creating
long queues.

Delay of more
than 50 seconds.

Delay of more than 80 seconds.

Vehicles may wait through more than
one cycle to clear the intersection.

Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018 Traffic Operation Standards
Caltrans
All of the study intersections are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, but Caltrans does not have a standard of significance relative to operation as this is no longer a CEQA issue. The Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), published in May 2020, replaced the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, 2002. As indicated in the TISG, the Department is transitioning away from requesting LOS or other vehicle operation analyses of land use projects and will instead focus on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Adequacy of operation was therefore evaluated using the County’s standards for the study intersection in Sonoma County (SR 116/Occidental Road) and using the City of Sebastopol’s standards for the remaining five study intersections that are within City limits.

County of Sonoma
The Level of Service standard for intersections in Sonoma County is Level of Service D according to the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 Policy CT-4.2. Based on the most recent criteria published by the County of Sonoma in May 2016 and updated in June 2019, the project would have an adverse effect on operation at SR 116/Occidental Road if it results in any of the following conditions:
• Project traffic would cause an intersection currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) to operate below the standard (LOS E or F).
• If the intersection currently operates or is projected to operate below the County standard (at LOS E or F), project traffic causes the average delay to increase by five seconds or more. The delay will be determined by comparing intersection operation with and without the project’s traffic for both the existing and projected Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 686 of 1220 ends

16 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
future conditions. This criterion applies to all controlled intersections except for driveways and minor side streets that have less than 30 vehicle trips per hour per approach or exclusive left turn movement.

City of Sebastopol
The following criteria referenced in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2016 Sebastopol General Plan Update, May 2016, De Novo Planning Group, were applied in order to determine if the project would have an adverse effect on operation at the five study intersections within the City limits:
• Utilize a Level of Service objective of LOS D at intersections to evaluate conditions and impacts, with primary focus on access and safety.
• At signalized intersections, levels of service shall be determined for the overall intersection. • At unsignalized intersections, level of service shall be determined for both controlled movements and for the overall intersection. Controlled movements operating at LOS E or F would be considered acceptable if:
o The intersection is projected to operate at LOS D or better overall; and o The projected traffic volume on the controlled movement is relatively low (30 vehicles or less per hour on approaches with single lanes, 30 vehicles or less per hour on lanes serving left turns and through movements).
• For intersections already operating worse than LOS objectives, development projects should not contribute substantially to further decline in LOS (causing the LOS to decline by a letter grade from LOS E to LOS F) or by more than a five percent increase in delay for intersections currently operating at an unacceptable LOS.

While not explicitly stated in the DEIR, it was also considered an adverse effect on operations if project traffic would cause an intersection operating acceptably at LOS D or better to operate unacceptably at LOS E or F. It is also noted Policy CIR 1-5 of the Sebastopol General Plan, November 2016, De Novo Planning Group, states that “when analyzing impacts to the circulation network created by new development or roadway improvements, consider the needs of all users, including those with disabilities, ensuring that pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders are considered preeminent to automobile drivers.” In other words, there should be careful review to ensure that automobile improvements do not negatively affect the experiences of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.

Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic volumes. Existing traffic counts were obtained for the study intersections in late May 2023 while area schools were in session.

Under existing conditions, four of the six study intersections are operating acceptably while the intersection of SR 116/Occidental Road operates unacceptably at LOS F during both peak hours and SR 116/North Main Street operates unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. It is noted that the signal at SR 116/North Main Street includes an exclusive pedestrian phase which cannot be directly modeled using the HCM methodology, and thus the pedestrian phase was modeled as a northbound vehicle phase. The average vehicle delay and LOS for each scenario at SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue-North Main Street)/North Main Street is contained in an additional spreadsheet in Appendix B in which the delay experienced by pedestrians was removed from the calculations.

The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. A summary of the intersection Level of Service calculations is presented in Table 6, and copies of the calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 687 of 1220 ends

Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project
seb080.ai 8/23
North
Not to Scale
Occidental Rd
Gravenstei
n
H
wyN
Healdsburg Ave
Mill Station Rd
Covert Ln
N Main St
Hurlbut Ave
Murphy Ave
1 2
3 4 5 6
Project Site
116
116
116
116
Figure 3 – Existing Traffic Volumes
(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume
xx AM Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
LEGEND
260(198)
123(162)
111(87)
(97) 56
(167)158
(87) 50 41 (46) 488(513) 221(240)
(108) 46
(511)424
(80) 94
1 47(11)
35(4)
73(18)
(86) 69
(11) 52
(165)151 137(132) 477(604) 48 (4)
(58) 43
(481)390
(6) 67
2 43(25)
7 (14)
70(45)
(77)35
(6)12
(68)32 43 (65) 533(598) 24 (19)
(66) 34
(487)418
(34) 40
3 (199)208
(0) 0
(78) 83 112(131) 538(595) 0 (0)
(203)139(555)430
(0) 1
4 546(752)
18 (25)
(66) 52
(727)699
(22)37(41)60
5 135(116)
408(554)
(563)553
(121)151 129(144) 166(166)
6 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 688 of 1220 ends

18 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Table 6 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. SR 116/Occidental Rd 109 F 123 F
Add EBL/WBL Lanes with protected Phasing, WBR OL 57.7 E 59.7 E Add EBL /WBL Lanes with protected Phasing, Add EBR
Lane and WBR Overlap 48.2 D 49.8 D
With Roundabout 26.8 D 33.1 D

2. SR 116/Mill Station Rd 38.0 D 28.2 C

3. SR 116/Hurlbut Ave 20.9 C 23.9 C

4. SR 116/Covert Ln 5.5 A 4.9 A
Eastbound (Covert Ln) Approach 21.8 C 22.0 C

5. SR 116/Murphy Ave 1.7 A 0.9 A
Northbound (Murphy Ave) Approach 23.1 C 20.3 C

6. SR 116/N Main St 46.7 D 56.8 E
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation; Shaded cells = conditions with indicated modifications
The following capacity measures to decrease delay and improve operation of the two intersections operating unacceptably were analyzed.
• SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North)/Occidental Road
o Add 200-foot-long left-turn pockets on the eastbound and westbound approaches. o Convert the existing split phasing to protected left-turn phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches.
o Install a westbound right-turn overlap phase.

The intersection would continue operating unacceptably at LOS E with these modifications despite the reduction in delay. Adding a 200-foot-long eastbound right-turn lane to the above changes or installing a single-lane roundabout would both result in acceptable operation of LOS D.

Future Conditions
Future intersection turning movements for five of the six study intersections were obtained from the Circulation Element of the Sebastopol General Plan, while future turning movements at SR 116/Occidental Road were developed using the “Furness” method and segment volumes for the horizon year of 2040 from the SCTA traffic model. The Furness method is an iterative process that employs existing turn movement data, existing link volumes, and future link volumes to project likely future turning movement volumes at intersections. In accordance with Action CIR 1d of the General Plan and City of Sebastopol SR 116 Safety Study, 2021, W-Trans, a roundabout at SR 116/Covert Lane was assumed to be completed by 2040. It is noted that a roundabout project is not currently a part of the City or Caltrans’ Capital Improvement Program (CIP); however, the City will be pursuing a roundabout concept and potential funding sources at this location in cooperation with Caltrans later in the coming year.

Under anticipated Future volumes and with the addition of a roundabout at SR 116/Covert Lane, four of the six intersections are expected to operate acceptably. The intersection of SR 116/Occidental Road is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS F during both peak hours and SR 116/North Main Street is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Future volumes are shown in Figure 4 and operating conditions are summarized in Table 7, and copies of the calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 689 of 1220 ends

Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project
seb080.ai 8/23
North
Not to Scale
Occidental Rd
Gravenstei
n
H
wyN
Healdsburg Ave
Mill Station Rd
Covert Ln
N Main St
Hurlbut Ave
Murphy Ave
1 2
3 4 5 6
Project Site
116
116
116
116
Figure 4 – Future Traffic Volumes
(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume
xx AM Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
LEGEND
303(302)
138(214)
221(222)
(104) 73
(196)233
(87) 50 41 (46) 630(645) 321(330)
(122) 52(668)499(191)212
1 47(36)
35(5)
73(74)
(88) 97
(11) 52
(111)180 135(176) 597(691) 48 (6)
(79) 36
(724)441
(23) 67
2 43(16)
10(14)
70(32)
(105)37
(22)12
(84)32 43 (59) 667(822) 24 (19)
(87) 40
(689)562
(34) 35
3 (199)228
(78)113 93 (131) 663(595) 0 (0)
(203)155(555)531
(0) 0
4 645(999)
22 (53)
(39) 54
(964)847
(35) 45
(62)111
5 216(120)
537(898)
(847)761
(94)205 145(136) 226(183)
6 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 690 of 1220 ends

20 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Table 7 – Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. SR 116/Occidental Rd 235 F 225 F
Add EBL/WBL Lanes, Protected LT Phasing, WBR
Overlap 158 F 130 F
Add EBL /WBL Lanes, Protected LT Phasing, WBR Lane,
and WBR OL 134 F 109 F
With Roundabout 176 F 176 F

2. SR 116/Mill Station Rd 36.0 D 33.9 D

3. SR 116/Hurlbut Ave 24.0 C 29.0 C

4. SR 116/Covert Ln 11.4 B 22.6 C

5. SR 116/Murphy Ave 2.8 A 1.8 A
Northbound (Murphy Ave) Approach 29.8 D 34.1 D

6. SR 116/N Main St 51.5 D 62.4 E
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation; Shaded cells = conditions with indicated modifications
Adding 200-foot-long left-turn pockets on the east and west legs, protected left-turn phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches, and a westbound right-turn overlap phase to SR 116/Occidental Road or converting the intersection to a roundabout would be expected to decrease delay at the intersection under Future conditions; however, the intersection would continue operating unacceptably at LOS F during both peak hours as it also would under each improvement scenario.

Project Conditions
Trip Generation
The anticipated vehicle trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. Since the site is currently undeveloped, no existing trips were analyzed. The trip generation potential of the project as planned was developed using the published standard rates for Single Family Attached Housing (Land Use #215) and Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (Land Use #220), as the description of these land uses most closely matches the proposed project.

The number of residential units analyzed is 96, which includes 80 condominiums and 16 potential ADUs. Based upon the application of these assumptions, the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 684 trips per day, including 44 a.m. peak hour trips and 54 trips during the p.m. peak hour on a typical weekday. These results are summarized in Table 8.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 691 of 1220 ends

21 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Table 8 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Single Family (Attached) 80 du 7.20 576 0.48 38 10 28 0.57 46 27 19 Multifamily Housing 16 du 6.74 108 0.40 6 2 4 0.51 8 5 3 Total 684 44 12 32 54 32 22
Note: du = dwelling unit
Trip Distribution
The distribution pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was determined by reviewing existing turning movements at the study intersections as well as employment patterns for residents of the City of Sebastopol, as indicated by the 2010 Census. Since traffic conditions are generally most critical during the weekday p.m. peak hour, these distribution assumptions are primarily based on the expected trip routes during that time. The distribution assumptions shown in Table 9 were used.

Table 9 – Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent Daily Trips AM Trips PM Trips
Occidental Rd (To/From the East) 20% 137 9 11
Occidental Rd (To/From the West) 5% 34 2 3
SR 116 (To/From the North) 10% 68 4 5
SR 116 (To/From the South) 40% 275 18 22
Mill Station Rd (To/From the West) 5% 34 2 3
Covert Ln (To/From the West) 10% 68 4 5
N. Main St (To/From the North) 10% 68 4 5
TOTAL 100% 684 44 54
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-generated traffic to the existing volumes, four of six study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably while the intersection of SR 116/Occidental Road would continue operating unacceptably at LOS F during both peaks and SR 116/North Main Street would continue operating unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5 and Existing plus Project volumes are shown in Figure 6. The analysis results are summarized in Table 10, and copies of the calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 692 of 1220 ends

Page 693 of 1220 ends

Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project
seb080.ai 8/23
North
Not to Scale
Occidental Rd
Gravenstei
n
H
wyN
Healdsburg Ave
Mill Station Rd
Covert Ln
N Main St
Hurlbut Ave
Murphy Ave
1 2
3 4 5 6
Project Site
116
116
116
116
Figure 6 – Existing plus Project Traffic Volumes
(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume
xx AM Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
LEGEND
260(198)
123(162)
113(93)
(99) 57
(167)158
(87) 50 41 (46) 489(516) 221(240)
(109) 48(513)427
(84)100
1 53(15)
36(5)
83(25)
(87) 70
(12) 53
(165)151 137(132) 479(610) 50 (10)
(59) 44
(485)396
(16) 71
2 43(25)
7 (14)
70(45)
(77)35
(6)12
(68)32 43 (65) 552(612) 24 (19)
(66) 34
(506)425
(34) 40
3 (199)208
(0) 0
(81) 84 115(133) 554(607) 0 (0)
(203)139(571)436
(0) 1
4 552(768)
18 (25)
(66) 52
(739)715
(22)37(41)60
5 135(116)
413(567)
(573)566
(123)154 130(147) 166(166)
6 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 694 of 1220 ends

24 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Table 10 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. SR 116/Occidental Rd 109 F 123 F 113 F 127 F
Add EBL/WBL Lanes, Protected LT Phasing, and WBR
Overlap 57.7 E 59.7 E 59.9 E 61.3 E
Add EBL/WBL Lanes, Protected LT Phasing, WBR Lane
and WBR Overlap 48.2 D 49.8 D 46.7 D 47.6 D
With Roundabout 26.8 D 33.1 D 27.8 D 34.5 D

2. SR 116/Mill Station Rd 38.0 D 28.2 C 38.7 D 31.6 C

3. SR 116/Hurlbut Ave 20.9 C 23.9 C 21.7 C 24.7 C

4. SR 116/Covert Ln 5.5 A 4.9 A 5.6 A 5.1 A
Eastbound (Covert Ln) Approach 21.8 C 22.0 C 22.6 C 22.8 C

5. SR 116/Murphy Ave 1.7 A 0.9 A 1.7 A 0.9 A
Northbound (Murphy Ave) Approach 23.1 C 20.3 C 23.6 C 20.7 C

6. SR 116/N Main St 46.7 D 56.8 E 47.8 D 61.0 E
With Signal Timing Optimization - - - 54.5 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; Bold text = deficient operation; Shaded cells = conditions with indicated modifications
Adding 200-foot-long left-turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches, protected left-turn phasing, and a westbound right-turn overlap phase to SR 116/Occidental Road would reduce delay substantially, but the intersection would continue operating unacceptably at LOS E with or without project trips. Adding a 200-footlong eastbound right-turn lane with the above modifications or installing a single-lane roundabout would result in acceptable operation under Existing plus Project volumes. The project would add less than five seconds of delay at SR 116/Occidental Road and would not cause a deterioration in the service level; therefore, the project would not cause an adverse effect on existing operations per the County’s standards.

The project would result in a greater than a five percent increase in average delay at SR 116/North Main Street, which would operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour without or with the project. As a result, this is considered an adverse project impact under the City’s standards. Optimizing the signal’s cycle length and splits to accommodate project trips would result in an improved LOS D. Therefore, it is recommended that the project applicant contribute to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) that could be used to adjust the signal’s timing since the intersection is located near downtown with no right-of-way available for capacity enhancements.

Finding – Four of the six study intersections would be expected to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic to existing volumes while the intersections of SR 116/Occidental Road and SR 116/North Main Street would operate unacceptably with or without the project. The project would result in a greater than five percent increase in delay at SR 116/North Main Street during the p.m. peak hour, resulting in an adverse effect per the County’s standards.

Recommendation – The project applicant should contribute to the City of Sebastopol TIF that could be used to re-time the signal at SR 116/North Main Street to optimize operation.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 695 of 1220 ends

25 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Future plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-generated traffic to the anticipated future volumes, and with a roundabout installed at SR 116/Covert Lane, four of the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably. Future plus Project intersection operations are summarized in Table 11, and volumes are shown in Figure 7. Copies of the calculations are provided in Appendix B.

Table 11 – Future and Future plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection Future Conditions Future plus Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. SR 116/Occidental Rd 235 F 225 F 239 F 229 F
Add EBL/WBL Lanes, Protected EBL/WBL Phasing,
and WBR Overlap 158 F 130 F 161 F 133 F
Add EBL/WBL Lanes, Protected LT Phasing, WBR Lane
and WBR Overlap 134 F 109 F 137 F 111 F
With Roundabout 176 F 176 F 181 F 182 F

2. SR 116/Mill Station Rd 36.0 D 33.9 D 36.8 D 35.1 D

3. SR 116/Hurlbut Ave 24.0 C 29.0 C 25.1 C 30.2 C

4. SR/Covert Ln 11.4 B 22.6 C 11.8 B 23.9 C

5. SR 116/Murphy Ave 2.8 A 1.8 A 2.9 A 1.8 A
Northbound (Murphy Ave) Approach 29.8 D 34.1 D 30.8 D 35.1 E

6. SR 116/N Main St 51.5 D 62.4 E 52.5 D 64.9 E
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Bold = Unacceptable operation; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; Shaded cells = conditions with indicated modifications
The intersections of SR 116/Occidental Road and SR 116/North would continue operating unacceptably with the addition of project traffic; however, as the anticipated increases in overall delay would be less than five seconds for SR 116 /Occidental Road and less than five percent for SR 116/North Main Street, the project’s effects would be considered acceptable.

The addition of left-turn lanes and protected left-turn phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches to SR 116/Occidental Road, as well as a westbound right-turn overlap phase, would reduce delay while still resulting in LOS F. Installing a 200-foot-long eastbound right-turn lane along with the above changes would further reduce delay, while a single-lane roundabout at the intersection would be expected to have the least benefit in terms of reduced delay.

Finding – Four of the six study intersections would be expected to operate acceptably with the addition of project trips to future volumes while the intersections of SR 116/Occidental Road and SR 116/North Main Street would operate unacceptably under Future plus Project volumes or without project traffic added.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 696 of 1220 ends

Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project
seb080.ai 8/23
North
Not to Scale
Occidental Rd
Gravenstei
n
H
wyN
Healdsburg Ave
Mill Station Rd
Covert Ln
N Main St
Hurlbut Ave
Murphy Ave
1 2
3 4 5 6
Project Site
116
116
116
116
Figure 7 – Future plus Project Traffic Volumes
(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume
xx AM Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
LEGEND
303(302)
138(214)
223(228)
(106) 74
(196)233
(87) 50 41 (46) 631(648) 321(330)
(123) 54(670)502(195)218
1 53(40)
36(6)
83(81)
(89) 98
(12) 53
(111)180 135(176) 593(697) 50 (12)
(80) 37
(728)447
(33) 71
2 43(16)
10(14)
70(32)
(105)37
(22)12
(84)32 43 (59) 686(836) 24 (19)
(87) 40
(708)569
(34) 35
3 (162)228
(86)114 96 (169) 679(842) 0 (0)
(190)155(863)537
(0) 0
4 651(1015)
22 (53)
(39) 54
(976)863
(35) 45
(62)111
5 216(120)
542(911)
(857)774
(96)208 146(139) 226(183)
6 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 697 of 1220 ends

27 Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
• The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 684 trips per day, including 44 a.m. peak hour trips and 54 trips during the p.m. peak hour on a typical weekday. • The existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities provide adequate access to and from the project site and the project does not conflict with any policies, plans or programs for these modes. • The project is expected to meet the applicable significance threshold for vehicle miles traveled. • Sufficient sight distance is anticipated to be available at the new driveway created by the project. However, existing sight distance at the driveway intersection at Mill Station Road would need to be increased to 200 feet in each direction in order to be deemed sufficient. • The proposed roadway network, including connectivity to existing streets, would provide adequate emergency circulation and access from a transportation perspective. • The project would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Fire Marshal; any requirements imposed by the Fire Marshal shall take precedence over the emergency access and circulation findings contained herein. • Under existing conditions with and without the Project, four of the six study intersections are operating acceptably while the intersection of SR 116/Occidental Road operates unacceptably at LOS F during both peak hours and SR 116/North Main Street operates unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. • Four of the six study intersections would be expected to operate acceptably with the addition of project trips to future volumes while the intersections of SR 116/Occidental Road and SR 116/North Main Street would operate unacceptably under Future plus Project conditions. • The addition of left-turn lanes and protected left-turn phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches to SR 116/Occidental Road, as well as a westbound right-turn overlap phase, would reduce delay while still resulting in LOS F operation. Installing a 200-foot-long eastbound right-turn lane along with the above changes would further reduce delay, while a single-lane roundabout at the intersection would be expected to cause the smallest reductions in delay.

Recommendations
• The project applicant should contribute to the City of Sebastopol TIF. Such monies could be used to re-time the signal at SR 116/North Main Street to minimize delay.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 698 of 1220 ends

28 Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Canopy Project September 6, 2023
Study Participants and References
Study Participants
Principal in Charge Steve Weinberger, PE, PTOE
Associate Planner Mark Brown
Assistant Engineer Nathan Sharafian, EIT
Graphics Cameron Wong
Editing/Formatting Jessica Bender
Quality Control Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE
References
2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation, 2018 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2021 Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2018 Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2017 Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ULI, 2009 SCTM19 – rev. 12/21 travel demand model, SCTA, 2021
Sonoma County Transit, http://sctransit.com/
Sonoma County Travel Behavior Study, SCTA, 2020
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2018-2022 City of Sebastopol 2040 General Plan, City of Sebastopol, 2018 Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018
Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021 Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, California Department of Transportation, 2020 Countywide Active Transportation Plan, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2014 SEB080
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 699 of 1220 ends

B Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 2023
Appendix A
Collision Rate Calculations
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 700 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 701 of 1220 ends

Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 12
Number of Injuries: 2
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 23000
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
12 x
23,000 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.29 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.20 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2019 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 4
Number of Injuries: 2
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 15800
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
4x
15,800 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.14 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.33 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2019 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans The Canopy EIR
Thursday, May 25, 2023
Thursday, May 25, 2023

47.7%
Number of Collisions x 1 Million Collision Rate =
1:

Collision Rate
Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
January 1, 2018
December 31, 2022
Intersection # SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North) & Occidental Road
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North) & Mill Station
Road

47.5%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection January 1, 2018
365
Intersection #
December 31, 2022
Collision Rate = 365
2:

Number of Collisions x 1 Million

1.1%
Collision Rate = ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years

16.7%
1,000,000
Fatality Rate Injury Rate

0.0%

50.0%
Collision Rate Fatality Rate
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Injury Rate

0.0%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

0.6%
W-Trans
7/27/2023

Page 1 of 10 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 702 of 1220 ends

Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 5
Number of Injuries: 3
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 15000
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
5x
15,000 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.18 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.33 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2019 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 7
Number of Injuries: 5
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 17600
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Tee
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
7x
17,600 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.22 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.13 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2019 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Thursday, May 25, 2023
Collision Rate =
Collision Rate

0.0% 71.4%
1,000,000
365
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
Intersection #

47.7%
365
Collision Rate
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
Injury Rate
December 31, 2022
Collision Rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

0.0%
The Canopy EIR
January 1, 2018

47.3%
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
January 1, 2018
3: SR 116 (Gravenstein Highway North) & Hurlbut
Avenue
Collision Rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
December 31, 2022

1.3%
SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue) & Covert Lane
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

0.6%
Thursday, May 25, 2023

60.0%
4:

Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
W-Trans
7/27/2023

Page 2 of 10 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 703 of 1220 ends

Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 4
Number of Injuries: 2
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 16300
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Tee
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Urban
4x
16,300 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.13 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.13 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2019 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 6
Number of Injuries: 1
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 16700
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 8
Intersection Type: Tee
Control Type: Signals
Area: Urban
6x
16,700 x x 8
Study Intersection 0.12 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.28 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2019 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Number of Collisions x 1 Million Collision Rate =
January 1, 2018

0.9% 49.1%
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
365
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

0.0% 16.7%
January 1, 2015
Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate
Thursday, May 25, 2023
Intersection # 5:

Collision Rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
December 31, 2022
Thursday, May 25, 2023
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

0.0%
Injury Rate

50.0%
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
365
Collision Rate Fatality Rate

47.3%
Intersection # 6: SR 116 (Healdsburg Avenue) & North Main Street

1.3%
SR116 (Healdsburg Avenue) & Murphy Avenue
Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
December 31, 2022
The Canopy EIR
W-Trans
7/27/2023

Page 3 of 10 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 704 of 1220 ends

C Draft Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project September 2023
Appendix B
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 705 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 706 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 158 56 111 123 260 46 424 94 221 488 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 158 56 111 123 260 46 424 94 221 488 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 184 55 129 143 0 53 493 100 257 567 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 62 198 59 139 154 254 102 403 82 238 587 47Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.38 0.38Sat Flow, veh/h 313 994 297 775 859 1418 1594 1349 274 1594 1530 121Grp Volume(v), veh/h 297 0 0 272 0 0 53 0 593 257 0 612Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1604 0 0 1635 0 1418 1594 0 1623 1594 0 1652Q Serve(g_s), s 24.4 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 48.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.4 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 48.6Prop In Lane 0.20 0.19 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 320 0 0 292 0 254 102 0 485 238 0 634V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 1.22 1.08 0.00 0.97Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 335 0 0 293 0 254 190 0 485 238 0 634HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 0.0 0.0 54.2 0.0 0.0 60.7 0.0 47.0 57.0 0.0 40.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.3 0.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 117.9 81.3 0.0 27.5Initial 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 12.3 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 31.4 13.2 0.0 23.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.0 0.0 0.0 89.1 0.0 0.0 62.2 0.0 164.9 138.2 0.0 67.9LnGrp LOS F A A F A A E A F F A EApproach Vol, veh/h 297 272 646 869Approach Delay, s/veh 84.0 89.1 156.5 88.7Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 57.6 32.9 24.7 46.2 30.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 40.0 28.0 * 20 40.0 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 50.6 26.4 22.0 42.0 24.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 109.1HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Gravenstein Hwy N & Mill Station Rd 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 151 52 69 73 35 47 43 390 67 48 477 137Future Volume (veh/h) 151 52 69 73 35 47 43 390 67 48 477 137Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 178 61 20 86 41 0 51 459 0 56 561 143Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 213 160 52 203 213 0 130 752 637 136 582 148Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.08 0.45 0.00 0.09 0.45 0.45Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1198 393 1594 1673 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1286 328Grp Volume(v), veh/h 178 0 81 86 41 0 51 459 0 56 0 704Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1594 0 1591 1594 1673 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1613Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 4.1 4.3 1.9 0.0 2.7 18.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 37.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 4.1 4.3 1.9 0.0 2.7 18.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 37.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 213 0 213 203 213 0 130 752 637 136 0 731V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.19 0.00 0.39 0.61 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.96Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 274 0 273 347 364 0 274 767 650 274 0 739HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.9 0.0 34.5 35.2 34.1 0.0 38.1 18.3 0.0 37.9 0.0 23.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 24.4Initial 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/ln4.3 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.8 0.0 1.0 6.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 17.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.0 0.0 35.0 35.7 34.3 0.0 38.8 19.9 0.0 38.6 0.0 47.6LnGrp LOS D A C D C A D B A D A DApproach Vol, veh/h 259 127 510 760Approach Delay, s/veh 45.3 35.2 21.8 46.9Approach LOS D D C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.8 45.4 14.8 11.1 45.0 16.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.8 3.7 3.7 5.8 4.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 40.0 19.0 15.0 40.0 15.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 39.0 6.3 4.9 20.2 11.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 3.6 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.0HCM 6th LOS D Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 707 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Gravenstein Hwy N & Hurlbut Ave 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 32 12 35 70 7 43 34 418 40 24 533 43Future Volume (veh/h) 32 12 35 70 7 43 34 418 40 24 533 43Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 14 0 80 8 12 39 475 0 27 606 0Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 282 91 253 304 32 31 102 726 615 77 700 593Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.43 0.00 0.05 0.42 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1000 511 1418 1092 177 173 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 0 0 100 0 0 39 475 0 27 606 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1511 0 1418 1443 0 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 13.4 0.0 1.0 19.6 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 13.4 0.0 1.0 19.6 0.0Prop In Lane 0.72 1.00 0.80 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 0 253 366 0 0 102 726 615 77 700 593V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.65 0.00 0.35 0.87 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 750 0 620 732 0 0 295 844 715 295 844 715HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 26.7 13.3 0.0 27.4 15.8 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.8 0.0 1.0 8.8 0.0Initial 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/ln0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.5 0.0 0.4 7.9 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 0.0 27.6 15.1 0.0 28.4 24.6 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A C A A C B A C C AApproach Vol, veh/h 50 100 514 633Approach Delay, s/veh 20.8 21.6 16.1 24.8Approach LOS C C B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.5 33.7 18.3 6.6 34.6 18.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 8.8 * 7.7 3.7 8.8 * 7.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 * 26 11.0 30.0 * 26Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 21.6 5.5 3.0 15.4 3.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.9HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th TWSC4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 4IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 5.5Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 83 208 139 430 538 112Future Vol, veh/h 83 208 139 430 538 112Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 44004Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - Stop - None - FreeStorage Length 0 250 150 - - 50Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 95 239 160 494 618 129Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1440 626 622 0 - 0 Stage 1 622 ----- Stage 2 818 -----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 146 484 959 - - 0 Stage 1 535 - - - -0 Stage 2 434 - - - -0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 121 481 956 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 256 ----- Stage 1 445 ----- Stage 2 433 -----Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 21.8 2.3 0HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBTCapacity (veh/h) 956 - 256 481 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.167 - 0.373 0.497 -HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - 27.2 19.7 -HCM Lane LOS A - D C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.6 2.7 - Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 708 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
5: Murphy Ave & Healdsburg Ave 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.7Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 699 52 18 546 37 60Future Vol, veh/h 699 52 18 546 37 60Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 19 13 0 19 13Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 125 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 794 59 20 620 42 68Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 872 0 1522 856 Stage 1 - - - - 843 - Stage 2 - - - - 679 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 773 - 130 357 Stage 1 - - - - 422 - Stage 2 - - - - 504 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 761 - 123 348Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 259 - Stage 1 - - - - 415 - Stage 2 - - - - 483 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 23.1HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 308 - - 761 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.358 - - 0.027 -HCM Control Delay (s) 23.1 - - 9.9 -HCM Lane LOS C - - A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - - 0.1 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 151 553 0 0 408 135 0 189 0 166 0 129Future Volume (veh/h) 151 553 0 0 408 135 0 189 0 166 0 129Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 170 621 0 0 458 0 0 212 0 187 0 0Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 198 774 0 0 488 413 0 449 0 216 0 0Arrive On Green 0.12 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1418 0 1673 0 1594 187Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 621 0 0 458 0 0 212 0 187 58.4Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1418 0 1673 0 1594 EQ Serve(g_s), s 10.5 31.9 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 11.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 31.9 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 11.5Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 774 0 0 488 413 0 449 0 216V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.87Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 254 774 0 0 500 424 0 450 0 286HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.1 23.1 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 42.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 15.8Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 5.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.3 29.2 0.0 0.0 60.6 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 58.4LnGrp LOS E C A A E A A C A EApproach Vol, veh/h 791 458 212Approach Delay, s/veh 35.9 60.6 32.5Approach LOS D E CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.2 17.2 35.1 18.3 29.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 * 16 30.0 * 18 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 33.9 12.5 28.8 13.5 12.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.9HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 709 of 1220 ends

Summary Sheet Combining HCM 6th Edition Vehicle Delays at SR 116(Healdsburg Ave-N Main St)/N Main St AM Existing EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 170 621 458 0 212 187 0 1648 1436HCM Lane Group Delay 60.3 29.2 60.6 0 32.5 58.4 0AFR * Lane Group Delay 10251 18133 27755 0 6890 10921 0 73950 67060HCM Intersection Delay (s) 44.9 46.7 LOS D PM Existing EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 125 580 571 11 112 171 0 1570 1458HCM Lane Group Delay 46.3 25.2 94 22.3 27.7 49.6 0AFR * Lane Group Delay 5788 14616 53674 245 3102 8482 0 85907 82804HCM Intersection Delay (s) 54.7 56.8 LOS E AM Future EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 205 761 537 81 189 226 0 1999 1810HCM Lane Group Delay 83.8 32.9 56 29 48.5 82.5 0AFR * Lane Group Delay 17179 25037 30072 2349 9167 18645 0 102448 93282HCM Intersection Delay (s) 51.2 51.5 LOS D PM Future EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 94 847 898 14 109 183 0 2145 2036HCM Lane Group Delay 143.3 27.8 73.4 17.3 55.6 130.4 0AFR * Lane Group Delay 13470 23547 65913 242 6060 23863 0 133096 127035HCM Intersection Delay (s) 62.0 62.4 LOS E AM Existing plus Project EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 173 636 464 0 212 187 1 1673 1461HCM Lane Group Delay 61.7 30.1 62.5 0 32.9 59.1 0AFR * Lane Group Delay 10674 19144 29000 0 6975 11052 0 76844 69869HCM Intersection Delay (s) 45.9 47.8 LOS D PM Existing plus Project EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 127 591 585 11 112 171 4 1601 1489HCM Lane Group Delay 46.5 25.8 103.9 22.4 27.7 49.7 49.7AFR * Lane Group Delay 5906 15248 60782 246 3102 8499 199 93981 90879HCM Intersection Delay (s) 58.7 61.0 LOS E PM E+P with Retiming EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 127 591 585 11 112 171 0 1597 1485 HCM Lane Group Delay 83.5 23.2 69.5 21.1 29.6 91.7 0AFR * Lane Group Delay 10605 13711 40658 232 3315 15681 0 84201 80886HCM Intersection Delay (s) 52.7 54.5 LOS D AM Future plus Project EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 208 774 542 81 189 226 0 2020 1831HCM Lane Group Delay 85.4 33.9 57.1 29.1 49.3 83.6 0AFR * Lane Group Delay 17763 26239 30948 2357 9318 18894 0 105518 96201HCM Intersection Delay (s) 52.2 52.5 LOS D PM Future plus Project EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT (ped) SBL SBR Total Total without ped delayAdjusted Flow Rate (AFR) 96 857 911 14 109 183 0 2170 2061HCM Lane Group Delay 150 28.5 77.7 17.3 55.6 130.4 0AFR * Lane Group Delay 14400 24425 70785 242 6060 23863 0 139775 133715HCM Intersection Delay (s) 64.4 64.9 LOS E Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 710 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 158 56 111 123 260 46 424 94 221 488 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 158 56 111 123 260 46 424 94 221 488 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 184 55 129 143 0 53 493 100 257 567 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 120 210 63 153 318 507 116 498 101 267 710 56Arrive On Green 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.19 0.00 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.17 0.46 0.46Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1237 370 1594 1673 1418 1594 1350 274 1594 1530 121Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 0 239 129 143 0 53 0 593 257 0 612Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 0 1607 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1623 1594 0 1652Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 16.0 8.8 8.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 40.0 17.6 0.0 34.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 16.0 8.8 8.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 40.0 17.6 0.0 34.8Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 120 0 272 153 318 507 116 0 599 267 0 766V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.88 0.84 0.45 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.99 0.96 0.00 0.80Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 145 0 340 155 364 547 145 0 599 267 0 766HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.9 0.0 44.7 49.0 39.5 0.0 49.0 0.0 34.6 45.5 0.0 25.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 20.4 30.8 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 34.1 44.0 0.0 6.3Initial 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 0.0 7.6 4.7 3.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 20.4 10.0 0.0 13.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.0 0.0 65.0 79.8 41.0 0.0 50.1 0.0 68.6 89.5 0.0 31.4LnGrp LOS D A E E D A D A E F A CApproach Vol, veh/h 297 272 646 869Approach Delay, s/veh 62.1 59.4 67.1 48.6Approach LOS E E E DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 57.4 15.3 24.9 23.2 46.9 13.0 27.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 10 49.2 * 11 23.3 * 19 40.7 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 36.8 10.8 18.0 19.6 42.0 5.9 10.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 57.7HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 158 56 111 123 260 46 424 94 221 488 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 158 56 111 123 260 46 424 94 221 488 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 184 55 129 143 0 53 493 100 257 567 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 125 224 190 154 256 468 120 516 105 283 741 59Arrive On Green 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.18 0.48 0.48Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418 1594 1350 274 1594 1530 121Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 184 55 129 143 0 53 0 593 257 0 612Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1623 1594 0 1652Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 11.1 3.6 8.3 8.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 37.0 16.5 0.0 31.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 11.1 3.6 8.3 8.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 37.0 16.5 0.0 31.6Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 224 190 154 256 468 120 0 621 283 0 800V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.82 0.29 0.84 0.56 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.96 0.91 0.00 0.77Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 153 334 283 202 386 579 153 0 635 283 0 800HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.9 43.8 40.6 46.2 40.8 0.0 46.0 0.0 31.3 42.0 0.0 22.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 12.0 1.2 16.3 2.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 25.1 30.4 0.0 4.7Initial 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 5.1 1.3 3.9 3.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 17.7 8.6 0.0 12.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.9 55.8 41.8 62.5 43.6 0.0 47.0 0.0 56.4 72.4 0.0 26.7LnGrp LOS D E D E D A D A E E A CApproach Vol, veh/h 297 272 646 869Approach Delay, s/veh 51.5 52.5 55.6 40.2Approach LOS D D E DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.5 56.6 14.8 20.2 23.2 46.0 12.8 22.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 10 49.2 * 13 20.8 * 19 40.7 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 33.6 10.3 13.1 18.5 39.0 5.6 10.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.2HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 711 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Roundabout
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing + Roundabout Page 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 26.8Intersection LOS DApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes 1111Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 307 574 655 872Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 313 586 668 889Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 972 616 509 332Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 249 561 776 870Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0200Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 20.8 25.5 24.9 31.2Approach LOS C D C DLane Left Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRAssumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 313 586 668 889Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 512 736 821 984Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.980 0.981 0.981Flow Entry, veh/h 307 574 655 872Cap Entry, veh/h 503 721 805 964V/C Ratio 0.611 0.796 0.814 0.904Control Delay, s/veh 20.8 25.5 24.9 31.2LOS C D C D95th %tile Queue, veh 4 8 9 13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 167 97 87 162 198 108 511 80 240 513 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 167 97 87 162 198 108 511 80 240 513 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 176 88 92 171 0 114 538 78 253 540 44Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 84 162 81 100 185 246 135 423 61 237 551 45Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.36 0.36Sat Flow, veh/h 406 777 388 575 1069 1418 1594 1424 206 1594 1527 124Grp Volume(v), veh/h 356 0 0 263 0 0 114 0 616 253 0 584Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1571 0 0 1645 0 1418 1594 0 1630 1594 0 1651Q Serve(g_s), s 28.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 47.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 47.1Prop In Lane 0.26 0.25 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.08Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 327 0 0 285 0 246 135 0 484 237 0 596V/C Ratio(X) 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 1.27 1.07 0.00 0.98Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 327 0 0 293 0 253 189 0 484 237 0 596HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.3 0.0 0.0 54.8 0.0 0.0 60.8 0.0 47.3 57.3 0.0 42.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 75.9 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 137.8 77.9 0.0 31.7Initial 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 17.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 34.2 13.0 0.0 23.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 129.2 0.0 0.0 87.8 0.0 0.0 76.8 0.0 185.1 135.2 0.0 74.2LnGrp LOS F A A F A A E A F F A EApproach Vol, veh/h 356 263 730 837Approach Delay, s/veh 129.2 87.8 168.2 92.6Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.1 54.8 34.2 24.7 46.2 29.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 40.0 28.0 * 20 40.0 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.5 49.1 30.0 22.0 42.0 23.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 123.2HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 712 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Gravenstein Hwy N & Mill Station Rd 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 165 11 86 18 4 11 58 481 6 4 604 132Future Volume (veh/h) 165 11 86 18 4 11 58 481 6 4 604 132Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 168 11 0 18 4 0 59 491 0 4 616 123Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 220 231 0 85 89 0 147 951 806 17 656 131Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.57 0.00 0.01 0.49 0.49Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 1594 1673 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1349 269Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 11 0 18 4 0 59 491 0 4 0 739Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1594 1673 0 1594 1673 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1618Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 2.7 14.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 33.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 2.7 14.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 33.7Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 220 231 0 85 89 0 147 951 806 17 0 788V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.05 0.00 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.40 0.52 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.94Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 306 322 0 388 407 0 306 951 806 306 0 829HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.4 29.2 0.0 35.4 35.0 0.0 33.4 10.3 0.0 38.3 0.0 18.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 17.9Initial 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/ln3.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 4.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 14.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.7 29.2 0.0 35.8 35.1 0.0 34.0 10.9 0.0 40.9 0.0 36.9LnGrp LOS D C A D D A C B A D A DApproach Vol, veh/h 179 22 550 743Approach Delay, s/veh 36.2 35.7 13.4 36.9Approach LOS D D B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.9 43.8 7.9 4.5 50.2 15.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.8 3.7 3.7 5.8 4.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 40.0 19.0 15.0 40.0 15.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 35.7 2.8 2.2 16.0 9.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.2HCM 6th LOS C HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: Gravenstein Hwy N & Hurlbut Ave 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 68 6 77 45 14 25 66 487 34 19 598 65Future Volume (veh/h) 68 6 77 45 14 25 66 487 34 19 598 65Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70 6 0 46 14 0 68 502 0 20 616 0Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 350 25 268 300 77 0 139 773 655 59 690 584Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.09 0.46 0.00 0.04 0.41 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1290 134 1418 1070 409 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 0 0 60 0 0 68 502 0 20 616 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1424 0 1418 1479 0 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 14.9 0.0 0.8 22.2 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 14.9 0.0 0.8 22.2 0.0Prop In Lane 0.92 1.00 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 376 0 268 377 0 0 139 773 655 59 690 584V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.65 0.00 0.34 0.89 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 0 569 684 0 0 271 775 657 271 775 657HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.4 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 28.2 13.4 0.0 30.4 17.7 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.0 1.2 12.4 0.0Initial 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/ln1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.2 0.0 0.3 9.7 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.5 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 29.2 15.6 0.0 31.6 30.1 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A C A A C B A C C AApproach Vol, veh/h 76 60 570 636Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 22.2 17.2 30.2Approach LOS C C B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.3 35.5 19.9 6.1 38.7 19.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 8.8 * 7.7 3.7 8.8 * 7.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 * 26 11.0 30.0 * 26Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 24.2 4.0 2.8 16.9 4.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.9HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 713 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 4IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 4.9Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 78 199 203 555 595 131Future Vol, veh/h 78 199 203 555 595 131Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 44004Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - Stop - None - FreeStorage Length 0 250 150 - - 50Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 81 207 211 578 620 136Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1628 628 624 0 - 0 Stage 1 624 - - - - - Stage 2 1004 - - - - -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 112 483 957 - - 0 Stage 1 534 - - - - 0 Stage 2 354 - - - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 87 480 954 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 213 - - - - - Stage 1 415 - - - - - Stage 2 353 - - - - -Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 22 2.6 0HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBTCapacity (veh/h) 954 - 213 480 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.222 - 0.381 0.432 -HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - 32 18.1 -HCM Lane LOS A - D C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 1.7 2.1 - HCM 6th TWSC5: Murphy Ave & Healdsburg Ave 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.9Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 727 66 25 752 22 41Future Vol, veh/h 727 66 25 752 22 41Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 27 19 0 27 19Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 125 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 749 68 26 775 23 42Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 844 0 1664 829 Stage 1 - - - - 810 - Stage 2 - - - - 854 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 792 - 107 370 Stage 1 - - - - 438 - Stage 2 - - - - 417 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 99 356Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 232 - Stage 1 - - - - 428 - Stage 2 - - - - 394 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 20.3HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 300 - - 774 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.216 - - 0.033 -HCM Control Delay (s) 20.3 - - 9.8 -HCM Lane LOS C - - A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0.1 - Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 714 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 121 563 0 0 554 116 0 109 0 166 0 144Future Volume (veh/h) 121 563 0 0 554 116 0 109 0 166 0 144Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 125 580 0 0 571 11 0 112 0 171 0 0Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 152 772 0 0 530 439 0 452 0 201 0 0Arrive On Green 0.10 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1387 0 1673 0 1594 171Grp Volume(v), veh/h 125 580 0 0 571 11 0 112 0 171 49.6Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1387 0 1673 0 1594 DQ Serve(g_s), s 7.3 27.1 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 10.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 27.1 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 10.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 152 772 0 0 530 439 0 452 0 201V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.75 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.03 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.85Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 772 0 0 530 439 0 477 0 303HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.1 21.0 0.0 0.0 32.4 22.3 0.0 27.1 0.0 40.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 61.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 9.0Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 4.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.3 25.2 0.0 0.0 94.0 22.3 0.0 27.7 0.0 49.6LnGrp LOS D C A A F C A C A DApproach Vol, veh/h 705 582 112Approach Delay, s/veh 28.9 92.7 27.7Approach LOS C F CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.5 13.7 35.8 16.6 28.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 * 16 30.0 * 18 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.1 9.3 32.0 12.0 7.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.7HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 167 97 87 162 198 108 511 80 240 513 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 167 97 87 162 198 108 511 80 240 513 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 176 88 92 171 0 114 538 78 253 540 44Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 125 192 96 125 309 501 136 556 81 270 724 59Arrive On Green 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.17 0.47 0.47Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1042 521 1594 1673 1418 1594 1424 206 1594 1527 124Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 0 264 92 171 0 114 0 616 253 0 584Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 0 1563 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1630 1594 0 1651Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 0.0 20.3 6.9 11.4 0.0 8.6 0.0 45.3 19.2 0.0 35.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 0.0 20.3 6.9 11.4 0.0 8.6 0.0 45.3 19.2 0.0 35.2Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.08Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 0 288 125 309 501 136 0 636 270 0 783V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.92 0.74 0.55 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.97 0.94 0.00 0.75Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 134 0 307 134 328 518 171 0 642 270 0 783HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.2 0.0 49.0 55.2 45.3 0.0 55.2 0.0 36.6 50.2 0.0 26.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.3 0.0 30.4 15.3 2.4 0.0 20.9 0.0 27.7 38.1 0.0 4.2Initial 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 3.2 0.0 10.0 3.3 4.9 0.0 4.2 0.0 21.9 10.3 0.0 13.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.5 0.0 79.3 70.5 47.7 0.0 76.1 0.0 64.3 88.3 0.0 30.4LnGrp LOS E A E E D A E A E F A CApproach Vol, veh/h 356 263 730 837Approach Delay, s/veh 77.0 55.7 66.1 47.9Approach LOS E E E DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.1 64.2 14.3 28.8 25.4 54.0 14.3 28.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 13 55.8 * 10 24.0 * 21 48.2 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.6 37.2 8.9 22.3 21.2 47.3 8.9 13.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 59.7HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 715 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 167 97 87 162 198 108 511 80 240 513 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 167 97 87 162 198 108 511 80 240 513 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 176 88 92 171 0 114 538 78 253 540 44Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 138 219 181 138 219 434 143 578 84 279 750 61Arrive On Green 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.00 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.17 0.49 0.49Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 1378 1594 1673 1418 1594 1424 206 1594 1527 124Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 176 88 92 171 0 114 0 616 253 0 584Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 1378 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1630 1594 0 1651Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 11.0 6.4 6.0 10.7 0.0 7.6 0.0 39.0 16.8 0.0 30.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.0 11.0 6.4 6.0 10.7 0.0 7.6 0.0 39.0 16.8 0.0 30.1Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.08Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 138 219 181 138 219 434 143 0 662 279 0 811V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.80 0.49 0.67 0.78 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.93 0.91 0.00 0.72Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 362 298 161 372 563 193 0 727 305 0 852HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.8 45.6 43.6 47.8 45.4 0.0 48.2 0.0 30.7 43.7 0.0 21.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.8 9.3 2.9 5.3 8.3 0.0 11.0 0.0 18.2 26.6 0.0 3.1Initial 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 2.6 5.0 2.3 2.6 4.8 0.0 3.3 0.0 17.5 8.4 0.0 11.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.7 54.9 46.5 53.2 53.7 0.0 59.2 0.0 48.9 70.3 0.0 24.8LnGrp LOS D D D D D A E A D E A CApproach Vol, veh/h 356 263 730 837Approach Delay, s/veh 52.8 53.5 50.5 38.6Approach LOS D D D DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.4 59.3 14.1 20.4 23.6 50.0 14.1 20.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 13 55.8 * 11 23.4 * 21 48.2 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 32.1 8.0 13.0 18.8 41.0 8.0 12.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.1 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.7HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Roundabout1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing + Roundabout Page 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 33.1Intersection LOS DApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 370 471 736 841Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 378 480 751 858Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 903 759 532 384Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 339 524 749 855Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 1 2 0 1Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 23.6 25.1 41.1 34.7Approach LOS C D E DLane Left Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRAssumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 378 480 751 858Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 549 636 802 933Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980Flow Entry, veh/h 370 471 736 841Cap Entry, veh/h 538 624 786 914V/C Ratio 0.688 0.755 0.936 0.920Control Delay, s/veh 23.6 25.1 41.1 34.7LOS C D E D95th %tile Queue, veh 5 7 14 14 Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 716 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 233 73 221 138 303 52 499 212 321 630 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 233 73 221 138 303 52 499 212 321 630 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 271 75 257 160 50 60 580 238 373 733 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 35 164 45 199 124 282 98 389 160 237 675 41Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.43 0.43Sat Flow, veh/h 231 1079 299 1001 623 1418 1594 1126 462 1594 1560 96Grp Volume(v), veh/h 404 0 0 417 0 50 60 0 818 373 0 778Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1608 0 0 1623 0 1418 1594 0 1589 1594 0 1656Q Serve(g_s), s 22.8 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 4.4 5.5 0.0 51.8 22.3 0.0 64.9Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.8 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 4.4 5.5 0.0 51.8 22.3 0.0 64.9Prop In Lane 0.14 0.19 0.62 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 0 0 323 0 282 98 0 549 237 0 717V/C Ratio(X) 1.65 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.00 0.18 0.62 0.00 1.49 1.57 0.00 1.09Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 244 0 0 323 0 282 106 0 549 237 0 717HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 0.0 0.0 60.1 0.0 49.9 68.7 0.0 49.1 63.8 0.0 42.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 311.3 0.0 0.0 153.0 0.0 0.4 5.7 0.0 230.5 277.8 0.0 59.1Initial 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 30.2 0.0 0.0 25.8 0.0 1.6 2.4 0.0 55.0 27.2 0.0 37.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 374.9 0.0 0.0 213.1 0.0 50.3 74.4 0.0 279.6 341.6 0.0 101.7LnGrp LOS F A A F A D E A F F A FApproach Vol, veh/h 404 467 878 1151Approach Delay, s/veh 374.9 195.7 265.6 179.4Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 71.1 29.0 27.0 58.0 36.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 10 64.1 22.8 * 22 51.8 29.8Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 66.9 24.8 24.3 53.8 31.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 235.4HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Gravenstein Hwy N & Mill Station Rd 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 180 52 97 73 35 47 36 441 67 48 591 135Future Volume (veh/h) 180 52 97 73 35 47 36 441 67 48 591 135Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 180 52 45 73 35 0 36 441 0 48 591 120Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 217 111 96 202 212 0 107 748 634 127 620 126Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.45 0.00 0.08 0.46 0.46Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 817 707 1594 1673 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1349 274Grp Volume(v), veh/h 180 0 97 73 35 0 36 441 0 48 0 711Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1594 0 1524 1594 1673 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1623Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 0.0 5.0 3.6 1.6 0.0 1.8 16.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 35.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 0.0 5.0 3.6 1.6 0.0 1.8 16.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 35.8Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 217 0 207 202 212 0 107 748 634 127 0 745V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.47 0.36 0.17 0.00 0.34 0.59 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.95Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 282 0 269 357 374 0 282 788 668 282 0 765HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.7 0.0 33.9 33.9 33.1 0.0 37.8 17.6 0.0 37.1 0.0 22.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.9 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 21.9Initial 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/ln4.2 0.0 1.8 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.7 6.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 16.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.7 0.0 34.5 34.3 33.2 0.0 38.5 19.0 0.0 37.8 0.0 44.0LnGrp LOS D A C C C A D B A D A DApproach Vol, veh/h 277 108 477 759Approach Delay, s/veh 43.0 34.0 20.4 43.6Approach LOS D C C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.4 44.8 14.5 10.5 43.7 16.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.8 3.7 3.7 5.8 4.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 40.0 19.0 15.0 40.0 15.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 37.8 5.6 4.4 18.8 11.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.0HCM 6th LOS D Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 717 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Gravenstein Hwy N & Hurlbut Ave 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 32 12 37 70 10 43 40 562 35 24 667 43Future Volume (veh/h) 32 12 37 70 10 43 40 562 35 24 667 43Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 12 2 70 10 10 40 562 -5 24 667 0Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 273 85 239 265 36 25 102 773 655 70 739 626Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.46 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1020 502 1410 956 216 146 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 0 2 90 0 0 40 562 -5 24 667 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1522 0 1410 1318 0 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 16.9 0.0 0.9 23.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 16.9 0.0 0.9 23.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.73 1.00 0.78 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 358 0 239 326 0 0 102 773 655 70 739 626V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.73 -0.01 0.34 0.90 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 721 0 591 681 0 0 282 809 685 282 809 685HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.0 0.0 21.5 23.4 0.0 0.0 27.9 13.5 0.0 28.8 16.1 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.5 0.0 1.1 13.2 0.0Initial 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/ln0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 6.0 0.0 0.3 9.9 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.1 0.0 21.5 23.6 0.0 0.0 28.8 17.0 0.0 29.9 29.3 0.0LnGrp LOS C A C C A A C B A C C AApproach Vol, veh/h 46 90 597 691Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 23.6 18.0 29.3Approach LOS C C B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.7 36.2 18.2 6.4 37.5 18.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 8.8 * 7.7 3.7 8.8 * 7.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 * 26 11.0 30.0 * 26Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 25.0 6.3 2.9 18.9 3.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.0 3.6 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.0HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Roundabout4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 4IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh11.4Intersection LOS BApproach EB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 341 686 756Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 348 700 771Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 676 115 158Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 253 909 657Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 4 4 4Ped Cap Adj 0.999 0.999 0.999Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 9.7 12.2Approach LOS B A BLane Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LR LT TRAssumed Moves LR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 348 700 771Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 692 1227 1174Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.980Flow Entry, veh/h 341 686 756Cap Entry, veh/h 678 1203 1151V/C Ratio 0.503 0.571 0.657Control Delay, s/veh 13.1 9.7 12.2LOS B A B95th %tile Queue, veh 3 4 5 Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 718 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
5: Murphy Ave & Healdsburg Ave 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2.8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 847 54 22 645 45 111Future Vol, veh/h 847 54 22 645 45 111Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 19 13 0 19 13Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 125 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 847 54 22 645 45 111Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 920 0 1601 906 Stage 1 - - - - 893 - Stage 2 - - - - 708 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 742 - 117 334 Stage 1 - - - - 400 - Stage 2 - - - - 488 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 730 - 110 325Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 245 - Stage 1 - - - - 394 - Stage 2 - - - - 466 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 29.8HCM LOS DMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 297 - - 730 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.525 - - 0.03 -HCM Control Delay (s) 29.8 - - 10.1 -HCM Lane LOS D - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.9 - - 0.1 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 205 761 0 0 537 216 0 189 0 226 0 145Future Volume (veh/h) 205 761 0 0 537 216 0 189 0 226 0 145Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 205 761 0 0 537 81 0 189 0 226 0 16Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 227 888 0 0 589 487 0 350 0 248 0 0Arrive On Green 0.14 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1385 0 1673 0 1594 226Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 761 0 0 537 81 0 189 0 226 82.5Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1385 0 1673 0 1594 FQ Serve(g_s), s 16.3 50.5 0.0 0.0 39.5 5.2 0.0 13.0 0.0 18.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.3 50.5 0.0 0.0 39.5 5.2 0.0 13.0 0.0 18.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 888 0 0 589 487 0 350 0 248V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.17 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.91Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 251 1001 0 0 677 560 0 350 0 275HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.4 26.1 0.0 0.0 39.9 28.8 0.0 45.5 0.0 53.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 29.3 6.8 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 28.9Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.4 21.1 0.0 0.0 18.9 1.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 9.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 83.8 32.9 0.0 0.0 56.0 29.0 0.0 48.5 0.0 82.5LnGrp LOS F C A A E C A D A FApproach Vol, veh/h 966 618 189Approach Delay, s/veh 43.7 52.5 48.5Approach LOS D D DTimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 74.3 23.1 51.2 24.8 30.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 77.2 * 20 52.2 * 22 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 52.5 18.3 41.5 20.0 15.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.0 0.1 3.9 0.1 1.4Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.2HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 719 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 233 73 221 138 303 52 499 212 321 630 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 233 73 221 138 303 52 499 212 321 630 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 271 75 257 160 50 60 580 238 373 733 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 99 207 57 212 393 590 100 418 172 289 764 47Arrive On Green 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.49 0.49Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1262 349 1594 1673 1418 1594 1127 462 1594 1560 96Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 0 346 257 160 50 60 0 818 373 0 778Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 0 1611 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1589 1594 0 1656Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 23.8 19.3 11.7 3.1 5.3 0.0 53.8 26.3 0.0 65.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 23.8 19.3 11.7 3.1 5.3 0.0 53.8 26.3 0.0 65.6Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 99 0 264 212 393 590 100 0 589 289 0 811V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 1.31 1.21 0.41 0.08 0.60 0.00 1.39 1.29 0.00 0.96Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 146 0 264 212 393 590 131 0 589 289 0 811HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.2 0.0 60.6 62.8 46.9 25.6 66.2 0.0 45.6 59.3 0.0 35.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 163.5 130.6 1.0 0.1 2.1 0.0 184.7 154.1 0.0 22.3Initial 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 2.1 0.0 21.4 15.4 5.0 1.1 2.2 0.0 50.6 22.7 0.0 30.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.2 0.0 224.1 193.4 47.9 25.7 68.3 0.0 230.3 213.4 0.0 57.9LnGrp LOS E A F F D C E A F F A EApproach Vol, veh/h 404 467 878 1151Approach Delay, s/veh 201.7 125.6 219.3 108.3Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 77.2 24.0 30.0 31.0 60.0 13.7 40.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 68.2 * 19 23.8 * 26 53.8 * 13 29.8Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 67.6 21.3 25.8 28.3 55.8 7.1 13.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 157.7HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 233 73 221 138 303 52 499 212 321 630 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 233 73 221 138 303 52 499 212 321 630 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 271 75 257 160 50 60 580 238 373 733 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 99 229 194 212 347 551 100 449 184 289 807 50Arrive On Green 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.52 0.52Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418 1594 1127 462 1594 1560 96Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 271 75 257 160 50 60 0 818 373 0 778Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1589 1594 0 1656Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 19.8 7.0 19.3 12.2 3.2 5.3 0.0 57.8 26.3 0.0 62.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 19.8 7.0 19.3 12.2 3.2 5.3 0.0 57.8 26.3 0.0 62.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 99 229 194 212 347 551 100 0 633 289 0 857V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 1.19 0.39 1.21 0.46 0.09 0.60 0.00 1.29 1.29 0.00 0.91Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 129 229 194 212 347 551 126 0 633 289 0 857HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.2 62.6 57.1 62.8 50.4 28.1 66.2 0.0 43.6 59.3 0.0 31.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 119.0 1.8 130.6 1.4 0.1 2.1 0.0 142.8 154.1 0.0 13.6Initial 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 2.1 15.7 2.6 15.4 5.2 1.1 2.2 0.0 46.9 22.7 0.0 26.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.2 181.6 58.9 193.4 51.7 28.2 68.3 0.0 186.4 213.4 0.0 45.5LnGrp LOS E F E F D C E A F F A DApproach Vol, veh/h 404 467 878 1151Approach Delay, s/veh 142.5 127.2 178.3 99.9Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 81.2 24.0 26.0 31.0 64.0 13.7 36.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 72.6 * 19 19.8 * 26 57.8 * 12 27.4Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 64.0 21.3 21.8 28.3 59.8 7.1 14.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 134.0HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 720 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Roundabout
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future + Roundabout Page 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 175.6Intersection LOS FApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes 1111Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 414 769 887 1154Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 422 784 905 1177Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1390 712 715 486Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 273 908 1097 1010Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0200Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 173.6 116.6 191.2 203.6Approach LOS F F F FLane Left Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRAssumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 422 784 905 1177Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 334 668 665 841Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.981 0.981Flow Entry, veh/h 414 769 887 1154Cap Entry, veh/h 328 654 653 824V/C Ratio 1.262 1.175 1.360 1.400Control Delay, s/veh 173.6 116.6 191.2 203.6LOS F F F F95th %tile Queue, veh 19 26 38 50 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 196 104 222 214 302 122 668 191 330 645 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 196 104 222 214 302 122 668 191 330 645 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 196 91 222 214 104 122 668 185 330 645 42Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 56 125 58 171 164 290 126 433 120 226 634 41Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.14 0.41 0.41Sat Flow, veh/h 366 825 383 831 801 1415 1594 1254 347 1594 1554 101Grp Volume(v), veh/h 374 0 0 436 0 104 122 0 853 330 0 687Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1574 0 0 1632 0 1415 1594 0 1601 1594 0 1655Q Serve(g_s), s 22.8 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 9.5 11.4 0.0 51.8 21.3 0.0 61.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.8 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 9.5 11.4 0.0 51.8 21.3 0.0 61.2Prop In Lane 0.23 0.24 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 239 0 0 335 0 290 126 0 553 226 0 675V/C Ratio(X) 1.56 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.36 0.96 0.00 1.54 1.46 0.00 1.02Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 239 0 0 335 0 290 126 0 553 226 0 675HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 0.0 0.0 59.6 0.0 51.1 68.8 0.0 49.1 64.3 0.0 44.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 273.0 0.0 0.0 155.7 0.0 1.1 68.5 0.0 253.2 228.9 0.0 39.1Initial 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 27.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 3.4 7.0 0.0 58.9 22.9 0.0 31.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 336.6 0.0 0.0 215.3 0.0 52.2 137.4 0.0 302.3 293.3 0.0 83.5LnGrp LOS F A A F A D F A F F A FApproach Vol, veh/h 374 540 975 1017Approach Delay, s/veh 336.6 183.9 281.7 151.5Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.6 67.4 29.0 26.0 58.0 37.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 61.2 22.8 * 21 51.8 30.8Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.4 63.2 24.8 23.3 53.8 32.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 225.0HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 721 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Gravenstein Hwy N & Mill Station Rd 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 111 11 88 74 5 36 79 724 23 6 691 176Future Volume (veh/h) 111 11 88 74 5 36 79 724 23 6 691 176Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 11 2 74 5 25 79 724 17 6 691 164Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 158 137 25 155 23 116 134 1041 862 24 720 171Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.62 0.62 0.02 0.55 0.55Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1378 251 1594 238 1188 1594 1673 1386 1594 1301 309Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 0 13 74 0 30 79 724 17 6 0 855Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1594 0 1628 1594 0 1426 1594 1673 1386 1594 0 1610Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 0.8 4.7 0.0 2.1 5.2 31.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 54.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 0.8 4.7 0.0 2.1 5.2 31.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 54.6Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 158 0 162 155 0 139 134 1041 862 24 0 891V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.08 0.48 0.00 0.22 0.59 0.70 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.96Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 164 0 167 281 0 251 151 1041 862 148 0 922HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 0.0 44.1 46.1 0.0 44.9 47.7 13.6 7.8 52.5 0.0 23.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.3 2.4 2.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 20.4Initial 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/ln3.3 0.0 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.8 2.1 10.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 23.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.1 0.0 44.2 47.0 0.0 45.2 50.0 15.8 7.8 54.5 0.0 43.3LnGrp LOS E A D D A D D B A D A DApproach Vol, veh/h 124 104 820 861Approach Delay, s/veh 55.7 46.4 19.0 43.4Approach LOS E D B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.8 65.5 14.2 5.3 73.0 15.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.8 3.7 3.7 5.8 4.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.2 61.8 19.0 10.0 62.0 11.1Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 56.6 6.7 2.4 33.1 9.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.0 7.6 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.9HCM 6th LOS C HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: Gravenstein Hwy N & Hurlbut Ave 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 84 22 105 32 14 16 87 689 34 19 822 59Future Volume (veh/h) 84 22 105 32 14 16 87 689 34 19 822 59Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 22 28 32 14 -9 87 689 0 19 822 -6Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 249 56 220 319 142 0 131 951 806 54 870 737Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.57 0.00 0.03 0.52 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1088 350 1383 716 364 -211 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Grp Volume(v), veh/h 106 0 28 0 0 0 87 689 0 19 822 -6Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1438 0 1383 0 0 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 25.6 0.0 1.0 39.2 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 25.6 0.0 1.0 39.2 0.0Prop In Lane 0.79 1.00 0.86 -0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 305 0 220 0 0 0 131 951 806 54 870 737V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.72 0.00 0.35 0.94 -0.01Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 517 0 425 0 0 0 151 951 806 151 906 768HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.2 0.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.7 13.4 0.0 39.9 19.2 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 3.0 0.0 1.4 17.9 0.0Initial 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/ln2.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 9.0 0.0 0.4 17.6 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5 0.0 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.5 16.4 0.0 41.4 37.1 0.0LnGrp LOS C A C A A A D B A D D AApproach Vol, veh/h 134 0 776 835Approach Delay, s/veh 32.1 0.0 19.5 37.5Approach LOS C B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.7 52.8 21.2 6.6 56.9 21.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 8.8 * 7.7 3.7 8.8 * 7.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 45.8 * 26 8.0 45.8 * 26Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.5 41.2 0.0 3.0 27.6 7.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.4Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.0HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 722 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Roundabout
4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 4IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh22.6Intersection LOS CApproach EB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 245 1037 997Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 250 1058 1017Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 847 85 194Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 364 1012 949Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 4 4 4Ped Cap Adj 0.999 0.999 0.999Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 19.8 27.8Approach LOS B C DLane Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LR LT TRAssumed Moves LR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 250 1058 1017Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 582 1265 1132Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.981Flow Entry, veh/h 245 1037 997Cap Entry, veh/h 570 1240 1110V/C Ratio 0.430 0.837 0.899Control Delay, s/veh 13.2 19.8 27.8LOS B C D95th %tile Queue, veh 2 11 14 HCM 6th TWSC5: Murphy Ave & Healdsburg Ave 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 964 39 53 999 35 62Future Vol, veh/h 964 39 53 999 35 62Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 27 19 0 27 19Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 125 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 964 39 53 999 35 62Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1030 0 2143 1030 Stage 1 - - - - 1011 - Stage 2 - - - - 1132 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 674 - 54 283 Stage 1 - - - - 352 - Stage 2 - - - - 308 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 659 - 48 272Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 162 - Stage 1 - - - - 344 - Stage 2 - - - - 277 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 34.1HCM LOS DMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 218 - - 659 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.445 - - 0.08 -HCM Control Delay (s) 34.1 - - 10.9 -HCM Lane LOS D - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 - - 0.3 - Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 723 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 94 847 0 0 898 120 0 109 0 183 0 136Future Volume (veh/h) 94 847 0 0 898 120 0 109 0 183 0 136Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 94 847 0 0 898 14 0 109 0 183 0 -8Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 99 1031 0 0 874 725 0 299 0 184 0 0Arrive On Green 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1388 0 1673 0 1594 183Grp Volume(v), veh/h 94 847 0 0 898 14 0 109 0 183 130.4Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1388 0 1673 0 1594 FQ Serve(g_s), s 8.8 58.9 0.0 0.0 78.2 0.7 0.0 8.6 0.0 17.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 58.9 0.0 0.0 78.2 0.7 0.0 8.6 0.0 17.2Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 99 1031 0 0 874 725 0 299 0 184V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.82 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.02 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.99Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 99 1031 0 0 874 725 0 302 0 184HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 35.8 17.3 0.0 54.0 0.0 66.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 73.3 5.4 0.0 0.0 37.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 64.3Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 24.0 0.0 0.0 40.6 0.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 10.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 143.3 27.8 0.0 0.0 73.4 17.3 0.0 55.6 0.0 130.4LnGrp LOS F C A A F B A E A FApproach Vol, veh/h 941 912 109Approach Delay, s/veh 39.3 72.5 55.6Approach LOS D E ETimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 98.0 14.0 84.0 22.0 29.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 92.2 * 9.3 78.2 * 17 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 60.9 10.8 80.2 19.2 10.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.0HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 196 104 222 214 302 122 668 191 330 645 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 196 104 222 214 302 122 668 191 330 645 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 196 91 222 214 104 122 668 185 330 645 42Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 107 154 71 190 328 515 141 526 146 267 774 50Arrive On Green 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.50 0.50Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1070 497 1594 1673 1415 1594 1254 347 1594 1554 101Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 0 287 222 214 104 122 0 853 330 0 687Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 0 1567 1594 1673 1415 1594 0 1601 1594 0 1655Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 0.0 20.8 17.3 17.1 7.3 11.0 0.0 60.8 24.3 0.0 51.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 0.0 20.8 17.3 17.1 7.3 11.0 0.0 60.8 24.3 0.0 51.6Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 0 225 190 328 515 141 0 671 267 0 825V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 1.28 1.17 0.65 0.20 0.86 0.00 1.27 1.24 0.00 0.83Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 137 0 225 190 328 515 148 0 671 267 0 825HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.8 0.0 62.1 63.8 53.8 31.7 65.2 0.0 42.1 60.3 0.0 31.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 0.0 154.3 117.6 5.2 0.3 34.5 0.0 133.2 133.9 0.0 7.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 0.0 17.7 13.1 7.6 2.5 5.7 0.0 47.7 19.6 0.0 21.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.5 0.0 216.4 181.5 58.9 32.0 99.7 0.0 175.3 194.3 0.0 38.8LnGrp LOS F A F F E C F A F F A DApproach Vol, veh/h 374 540 975 1017Approach Delay, s/veh 186.1 104.1 165.9 89.3Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.6 78.4 22.0 27.0 29.0 67.0 14.4 34.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 14 71.6 * 17 20.8 * 24 60.8 * 13 25.6Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 53.6 19.3 22.8 26.3 62.8 9.8 19.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 130.2HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 724 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 196 104 222 214 302 122 668 191 330 645 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 196 104 222 214 302 122 668 191 330 645 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 196 91 222 214 104 122 668 185 330 645 42Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 107 193 158 190 280 484 142 553 153 278 818 53Arrive On Green 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.53 0.53Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 1376 1594 1673 1414 1594 1254 347 1594 1554 101Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 196 91 222 214 104 122 0 853 330 0 687Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 1376 1594 1673 1414 1594 0 1601 1594 0 1655Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 16.7 9.1 17.3 17.7 7.6 11.0 0.0 63.9 25.3 0.0 48.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 16.7 9.1 17.3 17.7 7.6 11.0 0.0 63.9 25.3 0.0 48.7Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 193 158 190 280 484 142 0 706 278 0 871V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 1.02 0.57 1.17 0.76 0.21 0.86 0.00 1.21 1.19 0.00 0.79Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 110 193 158 190 280 484 170 0 706 278 0 871HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.8 64.2 60.8 63.8 57.6 33.9 65.2 0.0 40.6 59.8 0.0 27.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 33.0 69.3 6.1 117.6 12.4 0.3 26.5 0.0 106.9 114.3 0.0 5.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 10.6 3.4 13.1 8.4 2.6 5.4 0.0 44.9 18.8 0.0 19.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 99.8 133.4 66.9 181.5 70.0 34.2 91.6 0.0 147.5 174.1 0.0 33.0LnGrp LOS F F E F E C F A F F A CApproach Vol, veh/h 374 540 975 1017Approach Delay, s/veh 109.4 109.0 140.5 78.8Approach LOS F F F ETimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.6 82.5 22.0 22.9 30.0 70.1 14.4 30.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 73.7 * 17 16.7 * 25 63.9 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 50.7 19.3 18.7 27.3 65.9 9.8 19.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 109.0HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Roundabout1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future + Roundabout Page 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 176.1Intersection LOS FApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 387 738 981 1021Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 395 752 1000 1042Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1221 894 626 568Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 389 732 990 1078Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 1 2 0 1Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 77.3 194.1 194.4 183.0Approach LOS F F F FLane Left Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRAssumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 395 752 1000 1042Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 397 554 729 773Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.981 0.980Flow Entry, veh/h 387 738 981 1021Cap Entry, veh/h 389 544 715 758V/C Ratio 0.994 1.356 1.372 1.348Control Delay, s/veh 77.3 194.1 194.4 183.0LOS F F F F95th %tile Queue, veh 12 33 42 42 Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 725 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Roundabout
4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future + Roundabout Page 2IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 22.6Intersection LOS CApproach EB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 245 1037 997Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 250 1058 1017Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 847 85 194Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 364 1012 949Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 4 4 4Ped Cap Adj 0.999 0.999 0.999Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 19.8 27.8Approach LOS B C DLane Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LR LT TRAssumed Moves LR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 250 1058 1017Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 582 1265 1132Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.981Flow Entry, veh/h 245 1037 997Cap Entry, veh/h 570 1240 1110V/C Ratio 0.430 0.837 0.899Control Delay, s/veh 13.2 19.8 27.8LOS B C D95th %tile Queue, veh 2 11 14 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 158 57 113 123 260 48 427 100 221 489 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 158 57 113 123 260 48 427 100 221 489 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 184 56 131 143 0 56 497 107 257 569 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 62 198 60 140 153 254 104 398 86 238 585 46Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.38 0.38Sat Flow, veh/h 312 990 301 781 853 1418 1594 1334 287 1594 1531 121Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 0 0 274 0 0 56 0 604 257 0 614Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1604 0 0 1634 0 1418 1594 0 1621 1594 0 1652Q Serve(g_s), s 24.5 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 49.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.5 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 49.0Prop In Lane 0.19 0.19 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 320 0 0 293 0 254 104 0 483 238 0 631V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 1.25 1.08 0.00 0.97Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 335 0 0 293 0 254 190 0 483 238 0 631HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 0.0 0.0 54.3 0.0 0.0 60.7 0.0 47.0 57.0 0.0 40.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.6 0.0 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 128.5 81.6 0.0 29.1Initial 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 12.3 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 32.8 13.2 0.0 24.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.3 0.0 0.0 90.7 0.0 0.0 62.3 0.0 175.6 138.7 0.0 69.8LnGrp LOS F A A F A A E A F F A EApproach Vol, veh/h 298 274 660 871Approach Delay, s/veh 84.3 90.7 166.0 90.1Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.5 57.4 33.0 24.7 46.2 30.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 40.0 28.0 * 20 40.0 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 51.0 26.5 22.0 42.0 24.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 113.2HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 726 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Gravenstein Hwy N & Mill Station Rd 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 151 53 70 83 36 53 44 396 71 50 479 137Future Volume (veh/h) 151 53 70 83 36 53 44 396 71 50 479 137Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 178 62 21 98 42 7 52 466 5 59 564 143Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 213 158 54 205 179 30 130 749 631 138 583 148Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.45 0.45Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1187 402 1594 1393 232 1594 1673 1409 1594 1287 326Grp Volume(v), veh/h 178 0 83 98 0 49 52 466 5 59 0 707Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1594 0 1589 1594 0 1625 1594 1673 1409 1594 0 1613Q Serve(g_s), s 9.6 0.0 4.2 5.0 0.0 2.4 2.7 18.7 0.2 3.1 0.0 37.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 0.0 4.2 5.0 0.0 2.4 2.7 18.7 0.2 3.1 0.0 37.5Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 213 0 212 205 0 209 130 749 631 138 0 730V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.39 0.48 0.00 0.23 0.40 0.62 0.01 0.43 0.00 0.97Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 0 271 344 0 351 272 761 641 272 0 734HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 0.0 34.8 35.6 0.0 34.4 38.3 18.6 13.5 38.1 0.0 23.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.4 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 25.5Initial 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/ln4.4 0.0 1.6 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.8 0.1 1.2 0.0 17.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.5 0.0 35.3 36.2 0.0 34.6 39.0 20.4 13.5 38.8 0.0 48.9LnGrp LOS D A D D A C D C B D A DApproach Vol, veh/h 261 147 523 766Approach Delay, s/veh 45.7 35.7 22.2 48.2Approach LOS D D C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.9 45.6 15.0 11.3 45.2 16.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.8 3.7 3.7 5.8 4.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 40.0 19.0 15.0 40.0 15.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 39.5 7.0 5.1 20.7 11.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 3.6 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.7HCM 6th LOS D HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: Gravenstein Hwy N & Hurlbut Ave 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 32 12 35 70 7 43 34 425 40 24 552 43Future Volume (veh/h) 32 12 35 70 7 43 34 425 40 24 552 43Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 14 0 80 8 12 39 483 0 27 627 0Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 279 90 250 300 31 30 101 739 627 77 714 605Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.44 0.00 0.05 0.43 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1001 511 1418 1093 177 173 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 0 0 100 0 0 39 483 0 27 627 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1512 0 1418 1443 0 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 13.7 0.0 1.0 20.8 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 13.7 0.0 1.0 20.8 0.0Prop In Lane 0.72 1.00 0.80 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 369 0 250 361 0 0 101 739 627 77 714 605V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.65 0.00 0.35 0.88 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 738 0 609 720 0 0 290 830 703 290 830 703HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.2 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 27.2 13.2 0.0 27.9 15.9 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 1.0 10.2 0.0Initial 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/ln0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.6 0.0 0.4 8.5 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.2 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 28.1 15.2 0.0 28.9 26.1 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A C A A C B A C C AApproach Vol, veh/h 50 100 522 654Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 22.1 16.1 26.2Approach LOS C C B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.5 34.6 18.4 6.6 35.5 18.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 8.8 * 7.7 3.7 8.8 * 7.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 * 26 11.0 30.0 * 26Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 22.8 5.6 3.0 15.7 3.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.7HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 727 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 4IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 5.6Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 84 208 139 436 554 115Future Vol, veh/h 84 208 139 436 554 115Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 44004Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - Stop - None - FreeStorage Length 0 250 150 - - 50Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 97 239 160 501 637 132Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1466 645 641 0 - 0 Stage 1 641 - - - - - Stage 2 825 - - - - -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 141 472 943 - - 0 Stage 1 525 - - - - 0 Stage 2 430 - - - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 116 469 940 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 250 - - - - - Stage 1 435 - - - - - Stage 2 429 - - - - -Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 22.6 2.3 0HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBTCapacity (veh/h) 940 - 250 469 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.17 - 0.386 0.51 -HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - 28.2 20.4 -HCM Lane LOS A - D C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.7 2.8 - HCM 6th TWSC5: Murphy Ave & Healdsburg Ave 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.7Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 715 52 18 552 37 60Future Vol, veh/h 715 52 18 552 37 60Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 19 13 0 19 13Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 125 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 813 59 20 627 42 68Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 891 0 1548 875 Stage 1 - - - - 862 - Stage 2 - - - - 686 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 761 - 126 349 Stage 1 - - - - 414 - Stage 2 - - - - 500 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 749 - 119 340Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 255 - Stage 1 - - - - 407 - Stage 2 - - - - 479 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 23.6HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 302 - - 749 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.365 - - 0.027 -HCM Control Delay (s) 23.6 - - 9.9 -HCM Lane LOS C - - A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - - 0.1 - Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 728 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 154 566 0 0 413 135 0 189 0 166 0 130Future Volume (veh/h) 154 566 0 0 413 135 0 189 0 166 0 130Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 173 636 0 0 464 0 0 212 0 187 0 1Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 201 779 0 0 491 416 0 445 0 215 0 0Arrive On Green 0.13 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1418 0 1673 0 1594 187Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 636 0 0 464 0 0 212 0 187 59.1Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1418 0 1673 0 1594 EQ Serve(g_s), s 10.8 33.2 0.0 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 11.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.8 33.2 0.0 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 11.6Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 779 0 0 491 416 0 445 0 215V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.87Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 252 779 0 0 496 420 0 446 0 283HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.4 23.3 0.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 42.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.3 6.8 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 16.2Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.2 13.9 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 5.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.7 30.1 0.0 0.0 62.5 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 59.1LnGrp LOS E C A A E A A C A EApproach Vol, veh/h 809 464 212Approach Delay, s/veh 36.8 62.5 32.9Approach LOS D E CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.9 17.4 35.5 18.4 29.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 * 16 30.0 * 18 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 35.2 12.8 29.4 13.6 12.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.9HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 158 57 113 123 260 48 427 100 221 489 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 158 57 113 123 260 48 427 100 221 489 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 184 56 131 143 0 56 497 107 257 569 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 120 209 64 154 321 509 118 491 106 267 706 56Arrive On Green 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.19 0.00 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.17 0.46 0.46Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1231 375 1594 1673 1418 1594 1334 287 1594 1531 121Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 0 240 131 143 0 56 0 604 257 0 614Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 0 1606 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1621 1594 0 1652Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 16.1 8.9 8.3 0.0 3.7 0.0 40.7 17.7 0.0 35.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 16.1 8.9 8.3 0.0 3.7 0.0 40.7 17.7 0.0 35.2Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 120 0 273 154 321 509 118 0 597 267 0 762V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.88 0.85 0.45 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.01 0.96 0.00 0.81Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 0 339 154 363 545 144 0 597 267 0 762HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.0 0.0 44.7 49.1 39.5 0.0 49.1 0.0 34.9 45.7 0.0 25.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 20.6 32.1 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 39.8 44.6 0.0 6.6Initial 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 0.0 7.7 4.9 3.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 21.6 10.0 0.0 14.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.2 0.0 65.4 81.2 40.9 0.0 50.2 0.0 74.7 90.2 0.0 32.1LnGrp LOS D A E F D A D A F F A CApproach Vol, veh/h 298 274 660 871Approach Delay, s/veh 62.4 60.1 72.6 49.3Approach LOS E E E DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.9 57.2 15.4 25.0 23.2 46.9 13.0 27.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 10 49.2 * 11 23.3 * 19 40.7 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 37.2 10.9 18.1 19.7 42.7 5.9 10.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 59.9HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 729 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 158 57 113 123 260 48 427 100 221 489 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 158 57 113 123 260 48 427 100 221 489 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 184 56 131 143 0 56 497 107 257 569 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 124 224 190 156 258 468 122 514 111 280 742 59Arrive On Green 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.18 0.48 0.48Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418 1594 1334 287 1594 1531 121Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 184 56 131 143 0 56 0 604 257 0 614Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1621 1594 0 1652Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 11.3 3.7 8.5 8.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 38.4 16.7 0.0 32.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 11.3 3.7 8.5 8.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 38.4 16.7 0.0 32.1Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 224 190 156 258 468 122 0 625 280 0 800V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.82 0.30 0.84 0.55 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.97 0.92 0.00 0.77Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 151 331 280 200 382 573 151 0 627 280 0 800HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 44.4 41.1 46.7 41.2 0.0 46.5 0.0 31.7 42.6 0.0 22.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 12.4 1.2 17.7 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 27.9 32.4 0.0 4.8Initial 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 5.2 1.3 4.1 3.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 18.7 8.8 0.0 12.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.5 56.8 42.3 64.3 43.8 0.0 47.5 0.0 59.6 75.0 0.0 27.1LnGrp LOS D E D E D A D A E E A CApproach Vol, veh/h 298 274 660 871Approach Delay, s/veh 52.2 53.6 58.5 41.2Approach LOS D D E DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 57.2 15.0 20.3 23.2 46.8 12.9 22.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 10 49.2 * 13 20.8 * 19 40.7 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 34.1 10.5 13.3 18.7 40.4 5.7 10.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.8HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Roundabout1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Existing plus Project + Roundabout Page 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 27.8Intersection LOS DApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 308 576 669 874Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 314 588 682 891Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 976 623 509 337Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 252 568 781 874Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 2 0 0Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 21.1 26.4 26.4 32.3Approach LOS C D D DLane Left Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRAssumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 314 588 682 891Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 510 731 821 979Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.980 0.981 0.981Flow Entry, veh/h 308 576 669 874Cap Entry, veh/h 501 716 805 959V/C Ratio 0.616 0.805 0.831 0.911Control Delay, s/veh 21.1 26.4 26.4 32.3LOS C D D D95th %tile Queue, veh 4 8 9 14 Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 730 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 167 99 93 162 198 109 513 84 240 516 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 167 99 93 162 198 109 513 84 240 516 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 176 90 98 171 0 115 540 82 253 543 44Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 84 160 82 106 184 250 136 419 64 236 548 44Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.36 0.36Sat Flow, veh/h 403 772 395 599 1045 1418 1594 1414 215 1594 1527 124Grp Volume(v), veh/h 358 0 0 269 0 0 115 0 622 253 0 587Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1570 0 0 1644 0 1418 1594 0 1628 1594 0 1651Q Serve(g_s), s 28.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 47.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 47.8Prop In Lane 0.26 0.25 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 325 0 0 290 0 250 136 0 482 236 0 593V/C Ratio(X) 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 1.29 1.07 0.00 0.99Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 325 0 0 292 0 252 189 0 482 236 0 593HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.6 0.0 0.0 54.8 0.0 0.0 60.9 0.0 47.6 57.6 0.0 43.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 79.6 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 145.5 79.2 0.0 34.5Initial 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 17.8 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 35.1 13.0 0.0 24.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 133.1 0.0 0.0 89.4 0.0 0.0 77.6 0.0 193.1 136.7 0.0 77.6LnGrp LOS F A A F A A E A F F A EApproach Vol, veh/h 358 269 737 840Approach Delay, s/veh 133.1 89.4 175.1 95.4Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.2 54.7 34.2 24.7 46.2 30.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 40.0 28.0 * 20 40.0 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.6 49.8 30.0 22.0 42.0 23.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 127.4HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Gravenstein Hwy N & Mill Station Rd 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 165 12 87 25 5 15 59 485 16 10 610 132Future Volume (veh/h) 165 12 87 25 5 15 59 485 16 10 610 132Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 168 12 1 26 5 4 60 495 10 10 622 123Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 212 203 17 118 63 50 145 917 759 40 651 129Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.02 0.48 0.48Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1524 127 1594 851 681 1594 1673 1386 1594 1351 267Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 0 13 26 0 9 60 495 10 10 0 745Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1594 0 1651 1594 0 1532 1594 1673 1386 1594 0 1619Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.4 2.9 15.4 0.3 0.5 0.0 35.9Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.4 2.9 15.4 0.3 0.5 0.0 35.9Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 212 0 220 118 0 113 145 917 759 40 0 779V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.00 0.08 0.41 0.54 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.96Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 294 0 305 373 0 358 294 917 759 294 0 797HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.1 0.0 30.8 35.4 0.0 35.1 34.9 11.8 8.4 38.9 0.0 20.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 21.8Initial 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/ln3.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.1 4.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 16.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.5 0.0 30.8 35.8 0.0 35.2 35.6 12.6 8.4 40.1 0.0 42.0LnGrp LOS D A C D A D D B A D A DApproach Vol, veh/h 181 35 565 755Approach Delay, s/veh 39.8 35.6 15.0 42.0Approach LOS D D B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.1 44.9 9.7 5.7 50.3 15.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.8 3.7 3.7 5.8 4.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 40.0 19.0 15.0 40.0 15.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 37.9 3.2 2.5 17.4 10.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.6HCM 6th LOS C Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 731 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Gravenstein Hwy N & Hurlbut Ave 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 68 6 77 45 14 25 66 506 34 19 612 65Future Volume (veh/h) 68 6 77 45 14 25 66 506 34 19 612 65Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70 6 0 46 14 0 68 522 0 20 631 0Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 347 25 266 298 77 0 138 781 662 59 698 592Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.09 0.47 0.00 0.04 0.42 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1290 134 1418 1070 409 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 0 0 60 0 0 68 522 0 20 631 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1424 0 1418 1479 0 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 15.8 0.0 0.8 23.1 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 15.8 0.0 0.8 23.1 0.0Prop In Lane 0.92 1.00 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 372 0 266 374 0 0 138 781 662 59 698 592V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.67 0.00 0.34 0.90 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 665 0 563 677 0 0 268 781 662 268 767 650HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.7 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 28.5 13.5 0.0 30.7 17.8 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 1.2 13.8 0.0Initial 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/ln1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.5 0.0 0.3 10.3 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.8 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 29.5 16.0 0.0 32.0 31.7 0.0LnGrp LOS C A A C A A C B A C C AApproach Vol, veh/h 76 60 590 651Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 22.5 17.6 31.7Approach LOS C C B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.4 36.1 20.0 6.1 39.4 20.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 8.8 * 7.7 3.7 8.8 * 7.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 * 26 11.0 30.0 * 26Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 25.1 4.1 2.8 17.8 4.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.7HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th TWSC4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 4IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 5.1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 81 199 203 571 607 133Future Vol, veh/h 81 199 203 571 607 133Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 44004Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - Stop - None - FreeStorage Length 0 250 150 - - 50Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 84 207 211 595 632 139Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1657 640 636 0 - 0 Stage 1 636 ----- Stage 2 1021 -----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 108 475 947 - - 0 Stage 1 527 - - - -0 Stage 2 348 - - - -0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 83 472 944 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 209 ----- Stage 1 408 ----- Stage 2 347 -----Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 22.8 2.6 0HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBTCapacity (veh/h) 944 - 209 472 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.224 - 0.404 0.439 -HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - 33.4 18.5 -HCM Lane LOS A - D C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - 1.8 2.2 -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 732 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
5: Murphy Ave & Healdsburg Ave 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.9Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 739 66 25 768 22 41Future Vol, veh/h 739 66 25 768 22 41Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 27 19 0 27 19Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 125 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 762 68 26 792 23 42Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 857 0 1694 842 Stage 1 - - - - 823 - Stage 2 - - - - 871 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 783 - 102 364 Stage 1 - - - - 431 - Stage 2 - - - - 410 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 765 - 94 350Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 227 - Stage 1 - - - - 422 - Stage 2 - - - - 387 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 20.7HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 294 - - 765 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.221 - - 0.034 -HCM Control Delay (s) 20.7 - - 9.9 -HCM Lane LOS C - - A -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0.1 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/22/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 123 573 0 0 567 116 0 109 0 166 0 147Future Volume (veh/h) 123 573 0 0 567 116 0 109 0 166 0 147Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 591 0 0 585 11 0 112 0 171 0 4Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 154 773 0 0 529 438 0 451 0 201 0 0Arrive On Green 0.10 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1387 0 1673 0 1594 171Grp Volume(v), veh/h 127 591 0 0 585 11 0 112 0 171 49.7Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1387 0 1673 0 1594 DQ Serve(g_s), s 7.4 27.9 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 10.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 27.9 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 10.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 154 773 0 0 529 438 0 451 0 201V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.76 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.03 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.85Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 773 0 0 529 438 0 476 0 302HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.1 21.2 0.0 0.0 32.5 22.4 0.0 27.1 0.0 40.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 4.6 0.0 0.0 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 9.1Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 11.3 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 4.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.3 25.8 0.0 0.0 103.9 22.4 0.0 27.7 0.0 49.7LnGrp LOS D C A A F C A C A DApproach Vol, veh/h 718 596 112Approach Delay, s/veh 29.4 102.4 27.7Approach LOS C F CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.7 13.9 35.8 16.7 28.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 * 16 30.0 * 18 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.9 9.4 32.0 12.0 7.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 58.7HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 733 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 167 99 93 162 198 109 513 84 240 516 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 167 99 93 162 198 109 513 84 240 516 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 176 90 98 171 0 115 540 82 253 543 44Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 124 192 98 125 311 502 137 553 84 268 723 59Arrive On Green 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.19 0.00 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.17 0.47 0.47Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1033 528 1594 1673 1418 1594 1414 215 1594 1527 124Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 0 266 98 171 0 115 0 622 253 0 587Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 0 1562 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1629 1594 0 1651Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 0.0 20.6 7.4 11.4 0.0 8.8 0.0 46.3 19.3 0.0 35.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 0.0 20.6 7.4 11.4 0.0 8.8 0.0 46.3 19.3 0.0 35.8Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 0 290 125 311 502 137 0 637 268 0 782V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.92 0.78 0.55 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.98 0.94 0.00 0.75Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 133 0 304 133 326 515 169 0 637 268 0 782HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.6 0.0 49.3 55.8 45.4 0.0 55.5 0.0 36.9 50.7 0.0 26.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.9 0.0 31.2 22.0 2.4 0.0 21.8 0.0 29.7 39.7 0.0 4.4Initial 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 3.3 0.0 10.2 3.7 4.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 22.6 10.4 0.0 14.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.5 0.0 80.5 77.8 47.8 0.0 77.2 0.0 66.6 90.4 0.0 30.9LnGrp LOS E A F E D A E A E F A CApproach Vol, veh/h 358 269 737 840Approach Delay, s/veh 78.2 58.7 68.3 48.8Approach LOS E E E DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 64.5 14.4 29.0 25.4 54.4 14.3 29.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 13 55.8 * 10 24.0 * 21 48.2 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 37.8 9.4 22.6 21.3 48.3 9.0 13.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 61.3HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 167 99 93 162 198 109 513 84 240 516 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 167 99 93 162 198 109 513 84 240 516 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 176 90 98 171 0 115 540 82 253 543 44Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 137 219 180 139 220 434 142 577 88 278 754 61Arrive On Green 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.00 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.17 0.49 0.49Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 1378 1594 1673 1418 1594 1414 215 1594 1527 124Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 176 90 98 171 0 115 0 622 253 0 587Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 1378 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1629 1594 0 1651Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 11.1 6.6 6.5 10.8 0.0 7.7 0.0 39.9 17.0 0.0 30.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 11.1 6.6 6.5 10.8 0.0 7.7 0.0 39.9 17.0 0.0 30.5Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 137 219 180 139 220 434 142 0 664 278 0 815V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.80 0.50 0.71 0.78 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.94 0.91 0.00 0.72Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 150 359 295 159 368 560 191 0 719 302 0 844HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.4 46.1 44.1 48.5 45.8 0.0 48.8 0.0 30.9 44.2 0.0 21.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.3 9.4 3.0 8.6 8.1 0.0 12.7 0.0 19.3 27.2 0.0 3.2Initial 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 2.6 5.0 2.4 2.9 4.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 18.0 8.5 0.0 11.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.7 55.5 47.1 57.1 53.9 0.0 61.6 0.0 50.3 71.4 0.0 24.9LnGrp LOS E E D E D A E A D E A CApproach Vol, veh/h 358 269 737 840Approach Delay, s/veh 53.4 55.1 52.0 38.9Approach LOS D E D DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.4 60.1 14.2 20.5 23.8 50.7 14.1 20.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 13 55.8 * 11 23.4 * 21 48.2 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 32.5 8.5 13.1 19.0 41.9 8.1 12.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.1 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.6HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 734 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Roundabout
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project + Roundabout Page 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 34.5Intersection LOS DApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes 1111Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 372 477 743 844Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 380 486 758 861Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 912 762 532 391Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 340 528 760 857Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 1201Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 24.4 26.0 42.8 36.5Approach LOS C D E ELane Left Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRAssumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 380 486 758 861Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 544 634 802 926Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.980 0.980Flow Entry, veh/h 372 477 743 844Cap Entry, veh/h 534 622 786 908V/C Ratio 0.698 0.766 0.945 0.930Control Delay, s/veh 24.4 26.0 42.8 36.5LOS C D E E95th %tile Queue, veh 5 7 14 14 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/23/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Existing plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 123 573 0 0 567 116 0 109 0 166 0 147Future Volume (veh/h) 123 573 0 0 567 116 0 109 0 166 0 147Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 591 0 0 585 11 0 112 0 171 0 4Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 145 817 0 0 585 485 0 436 0 182 0 0Arrive On Green 0.09 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1387 0 1673 0 1594 171Grp Volume(v), veh/h 127 591 0 0 585 11 0 112 0 171 91.7Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1387 0 1673 0 1594 FQ Serve(g_s), s 7.8 27.6 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.5 0.0 5.2 0.0 10.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 27.6 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.5 0.0 5.2 0.0 10.5Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 145 817 0 0 585 485 0 436 0 182V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.72 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.94Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 145 817 0 0 585 485 0 458 0 182HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.3 20.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 21.1 0.0 28.9 0.0 43.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 39.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 37.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 48.3Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 10.9 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 6.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 83.5 23.2 0.0 0.0 69.5 21.1 0.0 29.6 0.0 91.7LnGrp LOS F C A A F C A C A FApproach Vol, veh/h 718 596 112Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 68.6 29.6Approach LOS C E CTimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.0 13.7 40.3 16.0 28.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.2 * 9 34.5 * 11 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.6 9.8 36.5 12.5 7.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.7HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 735 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 233 74 223 138 303 54 502 218 321 631 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 233 74 223 138 303 54 502 218 321 631 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 271 76 259 160 50 63 584 244 373 734 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 35 164 46 199 123 282 99 387 162 237 674 41Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.43 0.43Sat Flow, veh/h 230 1076 302 1003 620 1418 1594 1120 468 1594 1561 96Grp Volume(v), veh/h 405 0 0 419 0 50 63 0 828 373 0 779Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1608 0 0 1623 0 1418 1594 0 1588 1594 0 1656Q Serve(g_s), s 22.8 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 4.4 5.8 0.0 51.8 22.3 0.0 64.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.8 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 4.4 5.8 0.0 51.8 22.3 0.0 64.8Prop In Lane 0.14 0.19 0.62 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 0 0 322 0 282 99 0 548 237 0 716V/C Ratio(X) 1.66 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.18 0.64 0.00 1.51 1.57 0.00 1.09Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 244 0 0 322 0 282 106 0 548 237 0 716HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 0.0 0.0 60.1 0.0 49.9 68.7 0.0 49.1 63.8 0.0 42.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 313.3 0.0 0.0 155.6 0.0 0.4 7.8 0.0 238.9 277.8 0.0 60.2Initial 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 30.4 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 1.6 2.5 0.0 56.2 27.2 0.0 37.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 376.9 0.0 0.0 215.7 0.0 50.3 76.5 0.0 288.0 341.6 0.0 102.8LnGrp LOS F A A F A D E A F F A FApproach Vol, veh/h 405 469 891 1152Approach Delay, s/veh 376.9 198.1 273.1 180.1Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 71.0 29.0 27.0 58.0 36.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 10 64.1 22.8 * 22 51.8 29.8Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 66.8 24.8 24.3 53.8 31.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 238.7HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Gravenstein Hwy N & Mill Station Rd 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 180 53 98 83 36 53 37 447 71 50 593 135Future Volume (veh/h) 180 53 98 83 36 53 37 447 71 50 593 135Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 180 53 46 83 36 6 37 447 4 50 593 120Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 216 111 96 205 179 30 109 745 628 129 619 125Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.45 0.45 0.08 0.46 0.46Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 816 708 1594 1393 232 1594 1673 1409 1594 1350 273Grp Volume(v), veh/h 180 0 99 83 0 42 37 447 4 50 0 713Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1594 0 1524 1594 0 1625 1594 1673 1409 1594 0 1623Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 0.0 5.1 4.1 0.0 2.0 1.9 17.3 0.1 2.6 0.0 36.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.4 0.0 5.1 4.1 0.0 2.0 1.9 17.3 0.1 2.6 0.0 36.4Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 216 0 207 205 0 209 109 745 628 129 0 744V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.48 0.40 0.00 0.20 0.34 0.60 0.01 0.39 0.00 0.96Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 279 0 267 353 0 360 279 781 657 279 0 758HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.1 0.0 34.2 34.3 0.0 33.4 38.1 18.0 13.2 37.3 0.0 22.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.4 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 23.0Initial 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/ln4.2 0.0 1.9 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.7 6.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 16.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.4 0.0 34.9 34.8 0.0 33.6 38.8 19.4 13.2 38.0 0.0 45.4LnGrp LOS D A C C A C D B B D A DApproach Vol, veh/h 279 125 488 763Approach Delay, s/veh 43.6 34.4 20.9 44.9Approach LOS D C C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.6 45.1 14.7 10.7 44.0 16.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.8 3.7 3.7 5.8 4.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 40.0 19.0 15.0 40.0 15.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 38.4 6.1 4.6 19.3 11.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 3.5 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.8HCM 6th LOS D Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 736 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Gravenstein Hwy N & Hurlbut Ave 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 32 12 37 70 10 43 40 569 35 24 686 43Future Volume (veh/h) 32 12 37 70 10 43 40 569 35 24 686 43Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 12 2 70 10 10 40 569 -5 24 686 0Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 270 84 236 262 36 24 102 783 663 69 749 634Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.47 0.00 0.04 0.45 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1021 502 1410 954 215 146 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 0 2 90 0 0 40 569 -5 24 686 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1523 0 1410 1315 0 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 17.2 0.0 0.9 24.1 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 17.2 0.0 0.9 24.1 0.0Prop In Lane 0.73 1.00 0.78 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 354 0 236 322 0 0 102 783 663 69 749 634V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.73 -0.01 0.35 0.92 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 712 0 583 671 0 0 279 798 676 279 798 676HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.4 0.0 21.8 23.8 0.0 0.0 28.3 13.5 0.0 29.2 16.3 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.6 0.0 1.1 15.1 0.0Initial 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/ln0.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 6.1 0.0 0.4 10.8 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.4 0.0 21.8 24.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 17.1 0.0 30.3 31.4 0.0LnGrp LOS C A C C A A C B A C C AApproach Vol, veh/h 46 90 604 710Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 24.0 18.0 31.4Approach LOS C C B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.7 36.9 18.2 6.4 38.2 18.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 8.8 * 7.7 3.7 8.8 * 7.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 30.0 * 26 11.0 30.0 * 26Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 26.1 6.4 2.9 19.2 3.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 3.6 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.1HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Roundabout4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 4IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh11.8Intersection LOS BApproach EB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 342 692 775Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 349 706 791Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 693 116 158Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 256 926 664Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 4 4 4Ped Cap Adj 0.999 0.999 0.999Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 9.9 12.7Approach LOS B A BLane Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LR LT TRAssumed Moves LR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 349 706 791Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 681 1226 1174Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.980Flow Entry, veh/h 342 692 775Cap Entry, veh/h 667 1201 1151V/C Ratio 0.513 0.576 0.674Control Delay, s/veh 13.5 9.9 12.7LOS B A B95th %tile Queue, veh 3 4 6 Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 737 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th TWSC
5: Murphy Ave & Healdsburg Ave 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2.9Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 863 54 22 651 45 111Future Vol, veh/h 863 54 22 651 45 111Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 19 13 0 19 13Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 125 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 863 54 22 651 45 111Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 936 0 1623 922 Stage 1 - - - - 909 - Stage 2 - - - - 714 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 732 - 113 327 Stage 1 - - - - 393 - Stage 2 - - - - 485 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 720 - 106 318Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 240 - Stage 1 - - - - 387 - Stage 2 - - - - 463 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 30.8HCM LOS DMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 291 - - 720 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.536 - - 0.031 -HCM Control Delay (s) 30.8 - - 10.2 -HCM Lane LOS D - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3 - - 0.1 - HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 208 774 0 0 542 216 0 189 0 226 0 146Future Volume (veh/h) 208 774 0 0 542 216 0 189 0 226 0 146Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 208 774 0 0 542 81 0 189 0 226 0 17Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 230 893 0 0 592 490 0 347 0 248 0 0Arrive On Green 0.14 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1385 0 1673 0 1594 226Grp Volume(v), veh/h 208 774 0 0 542 81 0 189 0 226 83.6Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1385 0 1673 0 1594 FQ Serve(g_s), s 16.7 52.2 0.0 0.0 40.3 5.2 0.0 13.1 0.0 18.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.7 52.2 0.0 0.0 40.3 5.2 0.0 13.1 0.0 18.2Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 230 893 0 0 592 490 0 347 0 248V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.17 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.91Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 248 992 0 0 671 555 0 347 0 273HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.9 26.3 0.0 0.0 40.2 28.9 0.0 46.2 0.0 54.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.2 0.0 3.1 0.0 29.5Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.7 22.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 1.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 9.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.4 33.9 0.0 0.0 57.1 29.1 0.0 49.3 0.0 83.6LnGrp LOS F C A A E C A D A FApproach Vol, veh/h 982 623 189Approach Delay, s/veh 44.8 53.5 49.3Approach LOS D D DTimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 75.3 23.5 51.8 24.9 30.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 77.2 * 20 52.2 * 22 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 54.2 18.7 42.3 20.2 15.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.0 0.1 3.7 0.1 1.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.3HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 738 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 233 74 223 138 303 54 502 218 321 631 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 233 74 223 138 303 54 502 218 321 631 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 271 76 259 160 50 63 584 244 373 734 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 99 206 58 212 393 590 101 416 174 289 763 47Arrive On Green 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.49 0.49Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1257 353 1594 1673 1418 1594 1120 468 1594 1561 96Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 0 347 259 160 50 63 0 828 373 0 779Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 0 1610 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1588 1594 0 1656Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 23.8 19.3 11.7 3.1 5.6 0.0 53.8 26.3 0.0 65.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 23.8 19.3 11.7 3.1 5.6 0.0 53.8 26.3 0.0 65.8Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 99 0 264 212 393 590 101 0 589 289 0 810V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 1.31 1.22 0.41 0.08 0.62 0.00 1.41 1.29 0.00 0.96Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 146 0 264 212 393 590 131 0 589 289 0 810HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.2 0.0 60.6 62.8 46.9 25.6 66.2 0.0 45.6 59.3 0.0 35.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 165.2 134.2 1.0 0.1 2.3 0.0 192.5 154.1 0.0 22.8Initial 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 2.1 0.0 21.6 15.6 5.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 51.9 22.7 0.0 30.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.2 0.0 225.8 197.0 47.9 25.7 68.5 0.0 238.1 213.4 0.0 58.6LnGrp LOS E A F F D C E A F F A EApproach Vol, veh/h 405 469 891 1152Approach Delay, s/veh 203.3 127.9 226.1 108.7Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 77.1 24.0 30.0 31.0 60.0 13.7 40.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 68.2 * 19 23.8 * 26 53.8 * 13 29.8Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 67.8 21.3 25.8 28.3 55.8 7.1 13.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 160.8HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 50 233 74 223 138 303 54 502 218 321 631 41Future Volume (veh/h) 50 233 74 223 138 303 54 502 218 321 631 41Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 271 76 259 160 50 63 584 244 373 734 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 99 229 194 212 347 551 101 446 187 289 806 49Arrive On Green 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.52 0.52Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418 1594 1120 468 1594 1561 96Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 271 76 259 160 50 63 0 828 373 0 779Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418 1594 0 1588 1594 0 1656Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 19.8 7.1 19.3 12.2 3.2 5.6 0.0 57.8 26.3 0.0 62.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 19.8 7.1 19.3 12.2 3.2 5.6 0.0 57.8 26.3 0.0 62.3Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 99 229 194 212 347 551 101 0 633 289 0 855V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 1.19 0.39 1.22 0.46 0.09 0.62 0.00 1.31 1.29 0.00 0.91Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 129 229 194 212 347 551 126 0 633 289 0 855HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.2 62.6 57.1 62.8 50.4 28.1 66.2 0.0 43.6 59.3 0.0 32.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 119.0 1.8 134.2 1.4 0.1 2.3 0.0 149.8 154.1 0.0 14.0Initial 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 2.1 15.7 2.6 15.6 5.2 1.1 2.3 0.0 48.1 22.7 0.0 26.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.2 181.6 58.9 197.0 51.7 28.2 68.5 0.0 193.4 213.4 0.0 46.0LnGrp LOS E F E F D C E A F F A DApproach Vol, veh/h 405 469 891 1152Approach Delay, s/veh 142.3 129.4 184.6 100.2Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 81.1 24.0 26.0 31.0 64.0 13.7 36.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 72.6 * 19 19.8 * 26 57.8 * 12 27.4Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 64.3 21.3 21.8 28.3 59.8 7.1 14.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 136.5HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 739 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Roundabout
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportAM Future plus Project + Roundabout Page 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 180.7Intersection LOS FApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes 1111Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 415 771 900 1155Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 423 786 918 1178Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1393 719 715 491Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 276 914 1101 1014Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0200Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 176.4 121.1 199.4 207.3Approach LOS F F F FLane Left Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRAssumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 423 786 918 1178Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 333 663 665 836Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.981 0.981Flow Entry, veh/h 415 771 900 1155Cap Entry, veh/h 327 650 653 820V/C Ratio 1.269 1.186 1.379 1.409Control Delay, s/veh 176.4 121.1 199.4 207.3LOS F F F F95th %tile Queue, veh 19 26 40 50 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 196 106 228 214 302 123 670 195 330 648 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 196 106 228 214 302 123 670 195 330 648 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 196 93 228 214 104 123 670 189 330 648 42Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 55 125 59 173 162 290 126 431 122 226 634 41Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.14 0.41 0.41Sat Flow, veh/h 364 820 389 842 790 1415 1594 1248 352 1594 1554 101Grp Volume(v), veh/h 376 0 0 442 0 104 123 0 859 330 0 690Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1572 0 0 1631 0 1415 1594 0 1600 1594 0 1655Q Serve(g_s), s 22.8 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 9.5 11.5 0.0 51.8 21.3 0.0 61.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.8 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 9.5 11.5 0.0 51.8 21.3 0.0 61.2Prop In Lane 0.23 0.25 0.52 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 239 0 0 335 0 290 126 0 553 226 0 675V/C Ratio(X) 1.57 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.36 0.97 0.00 1.55 1.46 0.00 1.02Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 239 0 0 335 0 290 126 0 553 226 0 675HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.6 0.0 0.0 59.6 0.0 51.1 68.9 0.0 49.1 64.3 0.0 44.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 277.2 0.0 0.0 163.3 0.0 1.1 71.1 0.0 258.4 228.9 0.0 40.2Initial 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 27.3 0.0 0.0 27.7 0.0 3.4 7.1 0.0 59.7 22.9 0.0 31.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 340.8 0.0 0.0 222.9 0.0 52.2 139.9 0.0 307.5 293.3 0.0 84.6LnGrp LOS F A A F A D F A F F A FApproach Vol, veh/h 376 546 982 1020Approach Delay, s/veh 340.8 190.4 286.5 152.1Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.6 67.4 29.0 26.0 58.0 37.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 61.2 22.8 * 21 51.8 30.8Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.5 63.2 24.8 23.3 53.8 32.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 228.7HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 740 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Gravenstein Hwy N & Mill Station Rd 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 111 12 89 81 6 40 80 728 33 12 697 176Future Volume (veh/h) 111 12 89 81 6 40 80 728 33 12 697 176Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 12 3 81 6 29 80 728 27 12 697 164Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 158 128 32 156 24 116 134 1021 846 45 723 170Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.61 0.61 0.03 0.55 0.55Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1292 323 1594 245 1182 1594 1673 1386 1594 1304 307Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 0 15 81 0 35 80 728 27 12 0 861Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1594 0 1615 1594 0 1427 1594 1673 1386 1594 0 1611Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 0.9 5.2 0.0 2.5 5.3 32.6 0.8 0.8 0.0 55.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 0.9 5.2 0.0 2.5 5.3 32.6 0.8 0.8 0.0 55.6Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 158 0 160 156 0 140 134 1021 846 45 0 893V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.09 0.52 0.00 0.25 0.60 0.71 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.96Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 163 0 165 279 0 249 150 1021 846 147 0 916HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.4 0.0 44.5 46.6 0.0 45.3 48.0 14.6 8.4 51.7 0.0 23.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.3 2.9 2.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 21.4Initial 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/ln3.3 0.0 0.4 2.1 0.0 0.9 2.1 11.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 23.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.8 0.0 44.6 47.5 0.0 45.6 50.9 17.2 8.4 52.9 0.0 44.6LnGrp LOS E A D D A D D B A D A DApproach Vol, veh/h 126 116 835 873Approach Delay, s/veh 56.3 47.0 20.1 44.7Approach LOS E D C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.8 66.0 14.4 6.7 72.1 15.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.8 3.7 3.7 5.8 4.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.2 61.8 19.0 10.0 62.0 11.1Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 57.6 7.2 2.8 34.6 9.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.2 0.0 7.6 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.1HCM 6th LOS D HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: Gravenstein Hwy N & Hurlbut Ave 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 84 22 105 32 14 16 87 708 34 19 836 59Future Volume (veh/h) 84 22 105 32 14 16 87 708 34 19 836 59Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 22 28 32 14 -9 87 708 0 19 836 -6Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 248 55 218 319 142 0 130 956 810 54 876 742Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.57 0.00 0.03 0.52 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1088 350 1382 712 362 -210 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Grp Volume(v), veh/h 106 0 28 0 0 0 87 708 0 19 836 -6Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1438 0 1382 0 0 0 1594 1673 1418 1594 1673 1418Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 26.8 0.0 1.0 40.6 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 26.8 0.0 1.0 40.6 0.0Prop In Lane 0.79 1.00 0.86 -0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 303 0 218 0 0 0 130 956 810 54 876 742V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.74 0.00 0.35 0.95 -0.01Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 513 0 421 0 0 0 149 956 810 149 899 762HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 0.0 30.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 13.6 0.0 40.3 19.4 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 3.4 0.0 1.4 19.8 0.0Initial 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/ln2.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 9.5 0.0 0.4 18.5 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.8 0.0 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.2 16.9 0.0 41.7 39.2 0.0LnGrp LOS C A C A A A D B A D D AApproach Vol, veh/h 134 0 795 849Approach Delay, s/veh 32.4 0.0 19.9 39.5Approach LOS C B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.7 53.4 21.2 6.6 57.5 21.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 8.8 * 7.7 3.7 8.8 * 7.7Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 45.8 * 26 8.0 45.8 * 26Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.5 42.6 0.0 3.0 28.8 7.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.4Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.2HCM 6th LOS CNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 741 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Roundabout
4: Healdsburg Ave/Gravenstein Hwy N & Covert Ln 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 4IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh23.9Intersection LOS CApproach EB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 248 1053 1011Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 253 1074 1031Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 859 88 194Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 366 1024 968Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 4 4 4Ped Cap Adj 0.999 0.999 0.999Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 21.0 29.4Approach LOS B C DLane Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LR LT TRAssumed Moves LR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 253 1074 1031Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 575 1261 1132Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.981Flow Entry, veh/h 248 1053 1011Cap Entry, veh/h 563 1236 1110V/C Ratio 0.441 0.852 0.911Control Delay, s/veh 13.5 21.0 29.4LOS B C D95th %tile Queue, veh 2 11 14 HCM 6th TWSC5: Murphy Ave & Healdsburg Ave 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 5IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 976 39 53 1015 35 62Future Vol, veh/h 976 39 53 1015 35 62Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 27 19 0 27 19Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop StopRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - - 125 - 0 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222Mvmt Flow 976 39 53 1015 35 62Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1042 0 2171 1042 Stage 1 - - - - 1023 - Stage 2 - - - - 1148 -Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 667 - 51 279 Stage 1 - - - - 347 - Stage 2 - - - - 302 -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 652 - 45 268Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 158 - Stage 1 - - - - 339 - Stage 2 - - - - 271 -Approach EB WB NBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 35.1HCM LOS EMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBTCapacity (veh/h) 214 - - 652 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.453 - - 0.081 -HCM Control Delay (s) 35.1 - - 11 -HCM Lane LOS E - - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.2 - - 0.3 - Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 742 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Healdsburg Ave & N Main St 08/25/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project Page 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 96 857 0 0 911 120 0 109 0 183 0 139Future Volume (veh/h) 96 857 0 0 911 120 0 109 0 183 0 139Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 0 0 1673 1673 0 1673 0 1673 0 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 96 857 0 0 911 14 0 109 0 183 0 -5Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2Cap, veh/h 99 1031 0 0 874 725 0 299 0 184 0 0Arrive On Green 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1388 0 1673 0 1594 183Grp Volume(v), veh/h 96 857 0 0 911 14 0 109 0 183 130.4Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 0 0 1673 1388 0 1673 0 1594 FQ Serve(g_s), s 9.0 60.4 0.0 0.0 78.2 0.7 0.0 8.6 0.0 17.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 60.4 0.0 0.0 78.2 0.7 0.0 8.6 0.0 17.2Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 99 1031 0 0 874 725 0 299 0 184V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.83 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.02 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.99Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 99 1031 0 0 874 725 0 302 0 184HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.1 22.6 0.0 0.0 35.8 17.3 0.0 54.0 0.0 66.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 80.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 42.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 64.3Initial 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%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.9 24.7 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 10.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 150.0 28.5 0.0 0.0 77.7 17.3 0.0 55.6 0.0 130.4LnGrp LOS F C A A F B A E A FApproach Vol, veh/h 953 925 109Approach Delay, s/veh 40.8 76.8 55.6Approach LOS D E ETimer - Assigned Phs 2 5678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 98.0 14.0 84.0 22.0 29.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.8 * 4.7 5.8 * 4.7 3.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 92.2 * 9.3 78.2 * 17 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 62.4 11.0 80.2 19.2 10.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.4HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 196 106 228 214 302 123 670 195 330 648 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 196 106 228 214 302 123 670 195 330 648 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 196 93 228 214 104 123 670 189 330 648 42Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 107 152 72 190 328 515 142 523 148 267 773 50Arrive On Green 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.42 0.42 0.17 0.50 0.50Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1062 504 1594 1673 1415 1594 1248 352 1594 1554 101Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 0 289 228 214 104 123 0 859 330 0 690Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 0 1566 1594 1673 1415 1594 0 1600 1594 0 1655Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 0.0 20.8 17.3 17.1 7.3 11.0 0.0 60.8 24.3 0.0 52.1Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 0.0 20.8 17.3 17.1 7.3 11.0 0.0 60.8 24.3 0.0 52.1Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 0 225 190 328 515 142 0 671 267 0 824V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 1.29 1.20 0.65 0.20 0.86 0.00 1.28 1.24 0.00 0.84Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 137 0 225 190 328 515 148 0 671 267 0 824HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.8 0.0 62.1 63.8 53.8 31.7 65.1 0.0 42.1 60.3 0.0 31.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 0.0 158.3 129.1 5.2 0.3 35.0 0.0 137.3 133.9 0.0 7.9Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 0.0 17.9 13.8 7.6 2.5 5.8 0.0 48.5 19.6 0.0 21.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.5 0.0 220.4 193.0 58.9 32.0 100.1 0.0 179.4 194.3 0.0 39.3LnGrp LOS F A F F E C F A F F A DApproach Vol, veh/h 376 546 982 1020Approach Delay, s/veh 189.4 109.8 169.5 89.4Approach LOS F F F FTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.7 78.3 22.0 27.0 29.0 67.0 14.4 34.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 14 71.6 * 17 20.8 * 24 60.8 * 13 25.6Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 54.1 19.3 22.8 26.3 62.8 9.8 19.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 133.0HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 743 of 1220 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project + Recommendations Page 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 196 106 228 214 302 123 670 195 330 648 46Future Volume (veh/h) 87 196 106 228 214 302 123 670 195 330 648 46Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673 1673Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 196 93 228 214 104 123 670 189 330 648 42Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Cap, veh/h 107 193 158 190 280 484 143 550 155 278 817 53Arrive On Green 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.53 0.53Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 1673 1376 1594 1673 1414 1594 1248 352 1594 1554 101Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 196 93 228 214 104 123 0 859 330 0 690Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1594 1673 1376 1594 1673 1414 1594 0 1600 1594 0 1655Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 16.7 9.3 17.3 17.7 7.6 11.0 0.0 63.9 25.3 0.0 49.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 16.7 9.3 17.3 17.7 7.6 11.0 0.0 63.9 25.3 0.0 49.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.06Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 193 158 190 280 484 143 0 705 278 0 870V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 1.02 0.59 1.20 0.76 0.21 0.86 0.00 1.22 1.19 0.00 0.79Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 110 193 158 190 280 484 170 0 705 278 0 870HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.8 64.2 60.9 63.8 57.6 33.9 65.1 0.0 40.6 59.8 0.0 28.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 33.0 69.3 6.7 129.1 12.4 0.3 26.9 0.0 110.7 114.3 0.0 5.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 10.6 3.5 13.8 8.4 2.6 5.5 0.0 45.6 18.8 0.0 19.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 99.8 133.4 67.5 193.0 70.0 34.2 92.0 0.0 151.3 174.1 0.0 33.3LnGrp LOS F F E F E C F A F F A CApproach Vol, veh/h 376 546 982 1020Approach Delay, s/veh 109.4 114.5 143.9 78.9Approach LOS F F F ETimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.7 82.4 22.0 22.9 30.0 70.1 14.4 30.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2 * 4.7 6.2Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 73.7 * 17 16.7 * 25 63.9 * 10 24.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 51.2 19.3 18.7 27.3 65.9 9.8 19.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 111.3HCM 6th LOS FNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Roundabout1: Gravenstein Hwy N & Occidental Rd 08/29/2023TIS for the Canopy Residential Project Synchro 11 ReportPM Future plus Project + Roundabout Page 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 181.7Intersection LOS FApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes 1 1 1 1Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 389 744 988 1024Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 397 759 1007 1045Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1231 897 626 576Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 390 736 1002 1080Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 1 2 0 1Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 81.7 201.2 198.5 189.5Approach LOS F F F FLane Left Left Left LeftDesignated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRAssumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609 2.609Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976 4.976Entry Flow, veh/h 397 759 1007 1045Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 393 553 729 767Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.981 0.980Flow Entry, veh/h 389 744 988 1024Cap Entry, veh/h 385 542 715 751V/C Ratio 1.010 1.373 1.382 1.363Control Delay, s/veh 81.7 201.2 198.5 189.5LOS F F F F95th %tile Queue, veh 12 34 43 43 Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 744 of 1220 ends

Appendix H
Stormwater and Drainage Reports
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 745 of 1220 ends

Preliminary Drainage Analysis
For
The Canopy
1009 and 1011 Gravenstein Highway North
Sebastopol, CA
APN 060-261-026 & 028
JN 22181
December 1, 2023
Prepared for:

City Ventures Home Building LLC
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA, 92612
Attn: Samantha Hauser
Phone: (646) 552-4260
Email: [email protected]
David R. Brown, RCE 41833
My license expires 3/31/2024
Prepared by:
1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401
P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301 Prepared By: MZ
Website: www.adobeinc.com Checked By: AP
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 746 of 1220 ends

Table of Contents

1. Drainage Narrative

2. Aerial Photo

3. 10-Year Incremental Rational Method Drainage Study
 Pre-Existing Hydrology Map
 10-Year Storm Event Pre-Existing Conditions
 Pre-Construction Hydrology Map
 10-Year Storm Event Pre-Construction Conditions
 Post-Construction Hydrology Map
 10-Year Storm Event Post- Construction Conditions

4. NOAA Atlas 14 – Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates & Intensity Duration Frequency Curve (IDF Curve)

5. Stormwater Detention Analysis
 Stormwater Detention Watershed
 Precipitation Frequency for Synthetic Unit Method
 Detention Analysis Results
Appendices
I. Soil Analysis
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 747 of 1220 ends

Drainage Narrative
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 748 of 1220 ends

The Canopy
Drainage Narrative
Project Description
The Canopy is located at 1009 and 1011 Gravenstein Highway North in Sebastopol, California (APN 060-261-026 & 028). The two parcels total area is 6.1 acres. This project proposes twenty residential buildings across two parcels with driveways, parking lots, and associated hardscaping and landscaping. The project site has a total of 157,050 square feet (3.6 acres) of new impervious area.

The project site is currently undeveloped with existing grassy vegetation, several trees, and a paved bike pathway (approx. 3200 sf). Existing slopes in the proposed improvements generally vary from 2% to 15%. Current runoff within the parcel on the southeastern portion of the site sheet flows to the northwest. There is a high point on the northwestern portion of the site where runoff sheet flows to the north, west, and south.

The O’Reilly and Associates Office Park (hereon Office Park), designed by Bedford and Associates, is located directly southwest of the project site. Drainage design of this Office Park project included the storm drain system and an onsite detention basin at the northwesterly corner of the site. According to the Drainage Report for the Office Park project, prepared by Bedford and Associates, the detention basin had been sized and was built to maintain the 10-yr post-construction discharge rate (from the Office Park site) to no more than the 10-yr runoff from the site in undeveloped condition.

Methodology
The proposed site improvements include drainage improvements with a storm drain network that collects runoff from the project site and daylight to the existing detention pond. It is proposed to rebuild and repurpose the existing detention pond to also provide bio-retention (treatment) and hydromodification control for the proposed project site. The pond outlet and overflow structures will continue to merge and regulate the combined flows (from the pond and from existing Office Park storm drains) and discharge to off-site outfall at allowable flow rate.

The onsite drainage watershed was divided into multiple drainage areas based on their tributary areas and Incremental Rational Method (SCWA Flood Management Design Manual, FMDM) was used to find the total flow going into the system, refer to the PostConstruction Hydrology Map and 10-Year Incremental Rational Method Drainage Study for proposed stormdrain layout and flow calculations. Weighted runoff coefficients were calculated for each subbasin by approximating the amount of pervious and Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 749 of 1220 ends

impervious areas, using Table C-1 Runoff Coefficients from the FMDM. The time of concentration was conservatively assumed to be 7 minutes for each sub-watershed.

According to early project meetings and conversations with City Staffs, the proposed site drainage shall meet similar requirements as the Office Park site where the 10-yr postconstruction peak discharge flow to be no more than run-off from the site in undeveloped condition. Since discharges from both sites will be combined prior to being released to offsite outfall, it is reasonable to perform detention analysis for both project sites as a combined watershed.

Detention analyses have been performed using Autodesk SSA with Synthetic Unit Method as outlined by FMDM. A combined watershed of 12 acres of both Office Park site (5.9 acres) and the project site (6.1 acres) was modeled in these analyses (see Stormwater Detention Watershed). Analysis results are summarized in Detention Analysis Results (details of the analysis model, configuration and input data will be included in Final Drainage Report).

In undeveloped condition, peak runoff from the combined site was calculated as 15.48 cfs for 10-yr storm events with total runoff volume of 95,024 cu.ft.

For post-construction condition, the rebuilt detention pond and its inlet/outlet and overflow structures have been included in the analysis model. The 12 acres combined developed site generates a total (unmitigated) peak runoff of 29.21 cfs (14.37+14.84) with a total runoff of 154,119 cu.ft. (75,823+78,296) for 10-yr storm events. The rebuilt detention pond is found sufficiently regulating the peak discharge flow to 15.38 cfs at the off-site outfall.

Conclusion
The project proposed drainage improvements including bioretention facilities and a storm drain system that connects to the existing storm drain system and detention facility of the neighboring O’Reilly and Associates Office Park. Onsite stormdrain facilities are sized to handle runoff from 10-yr storm events and contain 100-yr flows within the system meeting the FMDM design criteria. Stormwater detention analyses have been performed for the combined watershed of the proposed project site and Office Park site. These analysis results have confirmed that the existing detention facility has sufficient capacity to limit the 10-year peak discharge flow from the combined watershed in postconstruction to no more than runoff from that watershed in preconstruction condition.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 750 of 1220 ends

Aerial Photo

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 751 of 1220 ends

1009 & 1011 Gravenstein Hwy N
APN 060-261-026 & 028
1000 ft
N
➤
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 752 of 1220 ends

10 -Year Incremental Rational
Method
Drainage Study
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 753 of 1220 ends

Pre-Existing Hydrology Map
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 754 of 1220 ends

GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY NORTH

WEST COUNTY AND RODOTA TRAILS

HURLBUT AVENUE
1 DA1

C (AVG)

0.33 PRE-EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP

THE CANOPY
1009 & 1011 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastapool, CA
APN 060-261-026 & 028
adobe associates, inc.
1220 N. Dutton Ave., Santa Rosa, CA 95401
P. (707) 541-2300 F. (707) 541-2301
Website: www.adobeinc.com
"A Service You Can Count On!"
civil engineering I land surveying I wa
DA1

DRAINAGE AREA TABLE

AREA THAT LEAD TO
THE HWY 116 SD BUT

WAS NOT

CONSIDERED IN THE

OLD CALCULATION
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 755 of 1220 ends

10-Year Storm Event Pre-Existing
Conditions
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 756 of 1220 ends

10 Project: 22181-The Canopy Date: 1/23/2023
Point of Travel Total Sum Q
Concentration Elevation Distance Slope V(ft/s) Time (min) Time (min) I C A Atotal AC AC (cfs) 10 ON SITE FLOW RATES
A 1 - - - - 15.00 15.00 2.44 0.33 1.18 1.18 0.39 0.39 0.95

9.88 10.83

ON SITE - POST CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
ACRES C t (min) Rainfall Intensity vs Duration
A 1 1.18 0.33 15.00 0.552
I = intensity (in/hour)
t = time of concentration (minutes)
T:\2022 PROJECTS\22181\Reports\Drainage\Preliminary Drainage Report\[22181-PRE EXISTING-Incremental Rational Method (w IDF Curve).xlsx]10_Year Storm Area
year
Incremental Rational Method Drainage Study
Additional flow to Hwy 116
I = 10.88 /t
-Yr Storm Event Pre-Existing Condition
Remarks
Allowed to bypass, without retention
Flow calculated from previous report
Total 10-year flow to existing Hwy 116 system

DRAINAGE
AREA
Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 757 of 1220 ends

Pre-Construction Hydrology Map
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 758 of 1220 ends

DA6B
DA1
DA3B
DA4
DA5
DA7B
DA8

GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY NORTH

WEST COUNTY AND RODOTA TRAILS

HURLBUT AVENUE
1 DA9
DA2A
DA2B
DA3A
DA6A
DA7A

C (AVG)

0.65 C (AVG)

0.64 C (AVG)

0.8 C (AVG)

0.64 C (AVG)

0.45 C (AVG)

0.8 C (AVG)

0.65 C (AVG)

0.38 C (AVG)

0.38 PRE CONSTRUCTION HYDROLOGY MAP

HATCHING LEGEND
DA1
DA2A
DA2B
DA3A
DA3B
DA4
DA5

DRAINAGE AREA TABLE
DA6A
DA6B
DA7A
DA7B
DA8
DA9
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 759 of 1220 ends

10-Year Storm Event PreConstruction Conditions
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 760 of 1220 ends

10 Project: 22181-The Canopy Date: 1/12/2023
Point of Travel Total Sum Q
Concentration Elevation Distance Slope V(ft/s) Time (min) Time (min) I C A Atotal AC AC (cfs) 10 ON SITE FLOW RATES
A T - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.69 6.32 6.32 4.36 4.36 16.21A N - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.33 1.66 1.66 0.55 0.55 2.04

ON SITE - POST CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
ACRES C t (min) *Land Use Designation Rainfall Intensity vs Duration A T* 6.33 0.69 7.00 0.552A N* 1.66 0.33 7.00 HD - High Density LD - Low DensityMD - Medium Density I = intensity (in/hour) *NOTE MLD - Medium/Low Density
AT: Total area from Northern portion of existing site to the Detention Pond R - Rural t = time of concentration (minutes) AN: B/C - Business or Commercial
I - IndustrialP - Parks and RecreationAG - Agricultural or Open SpaceReference Table C-1 of the Sonoma County FMDM, 2020.

T:\2022 PROJECTS\22181\Reports\Drainage\Preliminary Drainage Report\[22181-PRE EXISTING-Incremental Rational Method (w IDF Curve).xlsx]10_Year Storm Flow to DETENTION POND (Q1)
Incremental Rational Method Drainage Study
-Yr Storm Event Pre Construction
Area Remarks
year
New Flow to DETENTION POND (Q3)
Total area from Northern portion of existing site not included in old drainage calulations to the Detention Pond

DRAINAGE
AREA
I = 10.88 /t
Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 761 of 1220 ends

Post-Construction Hydrology Map
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 762 of 1220 ends

D
DA6
DA1
DA3
DA4
DA5
DA2
DA7

GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY NORTH

WEST COUNTY AND RODOTA TRAILS

HURLBUT AVENUE
1 DA8

POST-CONSTRUCTION HYDROLOGY MAP

DRAINAGE ROUTING
1 DRAINAGE AREA LEGEND
DA1 DA1
DA2
DA3
DA4
DA5
DA6
DA7
DA8

DRAINAGE AREA TABLE

HATCHING LEGEND
DA5 DA6 DA7
DA8
DA3 DA4
1 DA2
DA1
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 763 of 1220 ends

10-Year Storm Event PostConstruction Conditions
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 764 of 1220 ends

10 Project: 22181-The Canopy Date: 1/12/2023
Point of Travel Total Sum Q
Concentration Elevation Distance Slope V(ft/s) Time (min) Time (min) I C A Atotal AC AC (cfs) 10 ON SITE FLOW RATES
A 2 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 0.92 0.92 0.68 0.68 2.52A 1 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.30 1.12

3.64 A 3 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 1.15 1.15 0.85 0.85 3.15A 4 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 0.56 0.56 0.41 0.41 1.53A 7 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 1.20 1.20 0.89 0.89 3.29A 6 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 1.28 1.28 0.95 0.95 3.53A 5 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 0.46 0.46 0.34 0.34 1.26

8.09 A 9 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.48A 8 - - - - 7.00 7.00 3.72 0.74 1.84 1.84 1.36 1.36 5.07

18.31 1 21.96

ON SITE - POST CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
ACRES C t (min)
LAND*

USE SOIL TYPE
AVE
SLOPE (%) *Land Use Designation Rainfall Intensity vs Duration A 1 0.41 0.74 7.00 HD C >2-6 0.552A 2 0.92 0.74 7.00 MD C >2-6 HD - High DensityA 3 1.15 0.74 7.00 MD C >2-6 LD - Low DensityA 4 0.56 0.74 7.00 MD C >2-6 MD - Medium Density I = intensity (in/hour)A 5 0.46 0.74 7.00 MD C >2-6 MLD - Medium/Low DensityA 6 1.28 0.74 7.00 MD C >2-6 R - Rural t = time of concentration (minutes)A 7 1.20 0.74 7.00 MD C >2-6 B/C - Business or CommercialA 8 1.84 0.74 7.00 MD C >2-6 I - IndustrialA 9 0.17 0.74 7.00 HD C >2-6 P - Parks and Recreation AG - Agricultural or Open SpaceReference Table C-1 of the Sonoma County FMDM, 2020.

T:\2022 PROJECTS\22181\dwg\Adobe-Design\Drainage\[CALCS.xlsx]Sheet1 Total Flow to SD-7
Total Flow to EX-SD-2
Total Flow to SD-6
Flow to EX-SD-1
Flow to SD-5
Total Flow to SD-8Total Flow to SD-5
Combines Flow from DA1, DA2,DA3,DA4,DA5, DA6, DA7, DA8, and DA9 Combines Flow from DA1 and DA2 Total Flow to SD-1
Combines Flow from DA5, DA6, and DA7
Incremental Rational Method Drainage Study
Total Flow to SD-2
Flow to SD-1
Total Flow to SD-3Total Flow to SD-4
-Yr Storm Event Post Construction
Area Remarks
year

DRAINAGE
AREA
I = 10.88 /t
Combines Flow from DA5, DA6, DA7, DA8, and DA9 Total Flow to EX-SD-1 Agenda Item Number 3
Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 765 of 1220 ends

Sonoma County Water Agency
March 2020 C-1
Table C-1. Runoff Coefficients (Cs) (Incremental Rational Method) Land Use Lot Size Impervious Average Slope (%)
(acres) Fraction
Soil Type A
Residential1
Rural 0.03 0.24 0.28 0.34 0.38
Very low density 2 0.11 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.42
1 0.24 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.49
Low density 1/2 0.32 0.43 0.47 0.50 0.53
1/3 0.41 0.50 0.53 0.56 0.58
Medium-low density 1/4 0.49 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.62
Medium density 1/8 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.74
Medium-high density 1/18 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Business, commercial, etc. 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
General industrial 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Parks and recreation 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.35
Ag and open space 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.33
Soil Type B
Residential1
Rural 0.03 0.28 0.33 0.39 0.43
Very low density 2 0.11 0.34 0.38 0.43 0.47
1 0.24 0.42 0.45 0.50 0.53
Low density 1/2 0.32 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.57
1/3 0.41 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.61
Medium-low density 1/4 0.49 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.65
Medium density 1/8 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.74 0.76
Medium-high density 1/18 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Business, commercial, etc. 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
General industrial 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Parks and recreation 0.05 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.40
Ag and open space 0.02 0.23 0.28 0.33 0.38
Soil Type C
Residential1
Rural 0.03 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.47
Very low density 2 0.11 0.38 0.42 0.47 0.51
1 0.24 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.57
Low density 1/2 0.32 0.50 0.53 0.57 0.60
0-2 >2-6 >6-12 >12
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 766 of 1220 ends

Appendix C. Chapter 3, Hydrology Reference Material Flood Management Design Manual C-2
Sonoma County Water Agency
March 2020
Land Use Lot Size Impervious Average Slope (%)
(acres) Fraction
1/3 0.41 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.64
Medium-low density 1/4 0.49 0.60 0.63 0.65 0.68
Medium density 1/8 0.70 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.77
Medium-high density 1/18 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Business, commercial, etc. 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
General industrial 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Parks and recreation 0.05 0.34 0.39 0.44 0.48
Ag and open space 0.02 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.47
Soil Type D
Residential1
Rural 0.03 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.52
Very low density 2 0.11 0.42 0.47 0.52 0.55
1 0.24 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.60
Low density 1/2 0.32 0.54 0.57 0.61 0.63
1/3 0.41 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.67
Medium-low density 1/4 0.49 0.63 0.65 0.68 0.70
Medium density 1/8 0.70 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.78
Medium-high density 1/18 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Business, commercial 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
General industrial 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Parks and recreation 0.05 0.39 0.44 0.49 0.53
Ag and open space 0.02 0.38 0.42 0.48 0.52
0-2 >2-6 >6-12 >12
1 Percent impervious values are based on analysis conducted by ESA for Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water) in 2014, using a sample of existing developed areas. 2 For residential areas, composite C values were developed as follows: C values for soil type from Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual (1991) were modified for slope using the vegetated areas curve from Plate B-1 of SCWA (1983) for pervious areas within a given slope range and a C of 0.90 for all impervious areas.

Source: Approach adapted from McCuen 1989
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 767 of 1220 ends

NOAA Atlas 14 – Point Precipitation
Frequency Estimates & Intensity
Duration Frequency Curve (IDF
Curve)

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 768 of 1220 ends

https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html
Project: The Canopy Date: 1/19/2023
JN: 22181 Designer: AP
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Duration (min) 10-yr 100-yr
5 6.25 4.34
10 4.48 3.11
15 3.61 2.51
30 2.42 1.68
60 1.60 1.11
Rainfall Intensity vs Duration
I = intensity (in/hour)
t = time of concentration/ rainfall duration (minutes)
10-Year Trendline Values
a = 10.879
b = -0.552
100-Year Trendline Values
a = 15.65
b = -0.551
Intensity Duration Frequency Curve (IDF Curve)
NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates
T:\2022 PROJECTS\22181\Reports\Drainage\Preliminary Drainage Report\[22181-Incremenatal Rational Method (w IDF Curve).xlsx]IDF Curve NOAA Atlas 14 Data Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)
y = 10.878x-0.552
y = 15.651x-0.551
-

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00

7.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)
Rainfall Duration (min)
Rainfall Intensity vs. Duration
Series1 Series2 Power (Series1) Power (Series2)
∗

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 769 of 1220 ends

Stormwater Detention Analysis
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 770 of 1220 ends

DA1

GRAVENSTEIN HIGHWAY NORTH

WEST COUNTY AND RODOTA TRAILS

HURLBUT AVENUE

COMBINED WATERSHED

FOR STORMWATER

DETENTION ANALYSIS

STORMWATER DETENTION WATERSHED

DRAINAGE AREA TABLE
UNDEVELOPED CONDITION:

DEVELOPED CONDITION:

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 771 of 1220 ends

11/17/23, 2:27 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=37.4000&lon=-119.2000&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/4 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Shaver Lake, California, USA*
Latitude: 37.4°, Longitude: -119.2°
Elevation: 7158 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.165
(0.142‑0.193)

0.213
(0.184‑0.250)

0.280
(0.240‑0.329)

0.337
(0.287‑0.401)

0.420
(0.342‑0.520)

0.488
(0.387‑0.620)

0.560
(0.432‑0.735)

0.640
(0.476‑0.868)

0.755
(0.534‑1.08)

0.851
(0.577‑1.27)
10-min 0.237
(0.204‑0.277)

0.306
(0.263‑0.358)

0.401
(0.344‑0.472)

0.483
(0.411‑0.574)

0.602
(0.491‑0.746)

0.699
(0.555‑0.889)

0.803
(0.619‑1.05)

0.917
(0.682‑1.24)

1.08 (0.765‑1.54)

1.22 (0.827‑1.82)
15-min 0.286
(0.247‑0.335)

0.370
(0.318‑0.433)

0.485
(0.417‑0.571)

0.584
(0.497‑0.695)

0.728
(0.593‑0.902)

0.845
(0.671‑1.08)

0.971
(0.748‑1.27)

1.11 (0.825‑1.50)

1.31 (0.926‑1.87)

1.48 (1.00‑2.20)
30-min 0.391
(0.337‑0.457)

0.505
(0.435‑0.592)

0.663
(0.569‑0.780)

0.799
(0.679‑0.949)

0.995
(0.811‑1.23)

1.16 (0.917‑1.47)

1.33 (1.02‑1.74)

1.52 (1.13‑2.06)

1.79 (1.26‑2.55)

2.02 (1.37‑3.00)
60-min 0.509
(0.439‑0.596)

0.658
(0.567‑0.771)

0.863
(0.741‑1.02)

1.04 (0.884‑1.24)

1.30 (1.06‑1.60)

1.50 (1.19‑1.91)

1.73 (1.33‑2.27)

1.97 (1.47‑2.68)

2.33 (1.65‑3.33)

2.62 (1.78‑3.91)
2-hr 0.757
(0.653‑0.886)

0.960
(0.827‑1.12)

1.24 (1.07‑1.46)

1.49 (1.26‑1.77)

1.84 (1.50‑2.28)

2.13 (1.69‑2.71)

2.45 (1.89‑3.21)

2.79 (2.08‑3.79)

3.29 (2.33‑4.70)

3.71 (2.52‑5.52)
3-hr 0.948
(0.818‑1.11)

1.19 (1.03‑1.40)

1.53 (1.32‑1.80)

1.82 (1.55‑2.17)

2.25 (1.84‑2.79)

2.60 (2.07‑3.31)

2.98 (2.30‑3.91)

3.39 (2.52‑4.60)

3.99 (2.82‑5.70)

4.49 (3.05‑6.69)
6-hr 1.41
(1.22‑1.65)

1.76 (1.52‑2.06)

2.24 (1.93‑2.64)

2.66 (2.26‑3.16)

3.26 (2.66‑4.04)

3.76 (2.98‑4.78)

4.29 (3.30‑5.62)

4.86 (3.62‑6.60)

5.70 (4.03‑8.14)

6.40 (4.34‑9.52)
12-hr 2.09
(1.80‑2.44)

2.65 (2.28‑3.11)

3.42 (2.94‑4.03)

4.08 (3.47‑4.85)

5.02 (4.09‑6.22)

5.78 (4.59‑7.35)

6.58 (5.07‑8.63)

7.44 (5.54‑10.1)

8.68 (6.14‑12.4)

9.69 (6.57‑14.4)
24-hr 2.89
(2.57‑3.33)

3.78 (3.36‑4.36)

4.99 (4.42‑5.76)

6.01 (5.28‑6.98)

7.44 (6.36‑8.87)

8.58 (7.22‑10.4)

9.78 (8.06‑12.1)

11.1 (8.91‑14.0)

12.9 (10.0‑16.9)

14.4 (10.9‑19.4)
2-day 3.84
(3.41‑4.42)

5.13 (4.55‑5.91)

6.87 (6.07‑7.92)

8.32 (7.31‑9.66)

10.4 (8.87‑12.4)

12.0 (10.1‑14.6)

13.7 (11.3‑17.0)

15.5 (12.5‑19.7)

18.1 (14.1‑23.8)

20.2 (15.3‑27.3)
3-day 4.42
(3.93‑5.09)

5.97 (5.29‑6.87)

8.04 (7.11‑9.27)

9.78 (8.59‑11.4)

12.2 (10.5‑14.6)

14.2 (11.9‑17.2)

16.2 (13.4‑20.1)

18.4 (14.8‑23.3)

21.5 (16.7‑28.1)

23.9 (18.1‑32.3)
4-day 4.87
(4.32‑5.60)

6.58 (5.83‑7.57)

8.87 (7.85‑10.2)

10.8 (9.49‑12.5)

13.5 (11.5‑16.1)

15.6 (13.1‑19.0)

17.9 (14.7‑22.1)

20.2 (16.3‑25.6)

23.6 (18.4‑30.9)

26.3 (19.9‑35.5)
7-day 5.89
(5.23‑6.78)

7.89 (6.99‑9.08)

10.6 (9.34‑12.2)

12.8 (11.2‑14.8)

15.9 (13.6‑19.0)

18.4 (15.4‑22.3)

20.9 (17.2‑25.9)

23.6 (19.0‑29.9)

27.4 (21.3‑35.9)

30.5 (23.0‑41.1)
10-day 6.67
(5.92‑7.68)

8.88 (7.88‑10.2)

11.8 (10.5‑13.6)

14.3 (12.5‑16.6)

17.7 (15.1‑21.1)

20.3 (17.1‑24.7)

23.1 (19.0‑28.6)

26.0 (20.9‑32.9)

30.1 (23.4‑39.4)

33.3 (25.2‑44.9)
20-day 8.72
(7.74‑10.0)

11.6 (10.3‑13.4)

15.3 (13.6‑17.7)

18.4 (16.2‑21.4)

22.5 (19.3‑26.9)

25.7 (21.6‑31.2)

28.9 (23.9‑35.8)

32.3 (26.0‑40.9)

36.9 (28.7‑48.3)

40.4 (30.6‑54.5)
30-day 10.7
(9.51‑12.3)

14.2 (12.6‑16.4)

18.7 (16.6‑21.6)

22.3 (19.6‑25.9)

27.1 (23.2‑32.4)

30.7 (25.8‑37.3)

34.4 (28.3‑42.6)

38.1 (30.7‑48.2)

43.1 (33.5‑56.4)

46.9 (35.5‑63.3)
45-day 13.4
(11.9‑15.4)

17.7 (15.7‑20.3)

23.0 (20.4‑26.6)

27.3 (24.0‑31.7)

32.8 (28.0‑39.1)

36.8 (31.0‑44.7)

40.9 (33.7‑50.6)

44.9 (36.2‑56.9)

50.2 (39.1‑65.8)

54.2 (41.0‑73.1)
60-day 15.9
(14.1‑18.3)

20.9 (18.5‑24.0)

27.0 (23.9‑31.1)

31.7 (27.9‑36.8)

37.8 (32.3‑45.1)

42.2 (35.5‑51.2)

46.5 (38.3‑57.6)

50.8 (40.9‑64.3)

56.3 (43.8‑73.8)

60.4 (45.7‑81.4)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Page 772 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 773 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 774 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 775 of 1220 ends

SCHEMATIC ANALYSIS MODEL
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 776 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 777 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 778 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 779 of 1220 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 780 of 1220 ends

Appendix I
Soil Analysis
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 781 of 1220 ends

Soil Map—Sonoma County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/11/2023

Page 1 of 3 ends

4251360 4251410 4251460 4251510 4251560 4251610 4251660 4251410 4251460 4251510 4251560 4251610 4251660
513680 513730 513780 513830 513880 513930 513980 514030 514080 514130 513680 513730 513780 513830 513880 513930 513980 514030 514080 514130 38° 24' 47'' N
122° 50' 36'' W
38° 24' 47'' N
122° 50' 16'' W
38° 24' 37'' N
122° 50' 36'' W
38° 24' 37'' N
122° 50' 16'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 30 60 120 180
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,150 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 782 of 1220 ends

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Sonoma County, California
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 14, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 26, 2022—Apr 25, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map—Sonoma County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/11/2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 783 of 1220 ends

Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI GdC Goldridge fine sandy loam, 2 to
9 percent slopes

2.2 28.2%
SbC Sebastopol sandy loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes

5.7 71.8%
Totals for Area of Interest 7.9 100.0%
Soil Map—Sonoma County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/11/2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 784 of 1220 ends

Sonoma County, California
SbC—Sebastopol sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hfjc
Elevation: 100 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Sebastopol and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Sebastopol
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 24 inches: sandy loam
H2 - 24 to 28 inches: sandy clay loam
H3 - 28 to 57 inches: clay
H4 - 57 to 62 inches: clay loam
H5 - 62 to 72 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Map Unit Description: Sebastopol sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes---Sonoma County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/11/2023

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 785 of 1220 ends

Ecological site: R014XG912CA - Loamy Terrace
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Blucher
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Cotati
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Goldridge
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Sonoma County, California
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 14, 2022
Map Unit Description: Sebastopol sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes---Sonoma County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/11/2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 786 of 1220 ends

Sonoma County, California
GdC—Goldridge fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hfcy
Elevation: 200 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 225 to 240 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Goldridge and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Goldridge
Setting
Landform: Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 24 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 24 to 28 inches: sandy clay loam
H3 - 28 to 72 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water
(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: F004BK103CA - Upper slopes and higher elevation mountains
Map Unit Description: Goldridge fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes---Sonoma County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/11/2023

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 787 of 1220 ends

Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Blucher
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Cotati
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Sebastopol
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Steinbeck
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Swales
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Sonoma County, California
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 14, 2022
Map Unit Description: Goldridge fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes---Sonoma County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/11/2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 788 of 1220 ends

Appendix I
Noise Report
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 789 of 1220 ends

Appendix I
Noise Report
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 790 of 1220 ends

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE

THE CANOPY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CEQA NOISE REPORT
September 12, 2023
By
Veneklasen Associates, Inc.
1711 16th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 791 of 1220 ends

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description...................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Characteristics of Noise............................................................................................................................1

1.3 Characteristics of Vibration......................................................................................................................4

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Applicable State Noise Standards ............................................................................................................5

2.2 City of Sebastopol General Plan – Noise ..................................................................................................6

2.3 City of Sebastopol Municipal Code – Chapter 8.25, Noise Ordinance ...................................................11

2.4 City of Sebastopol General Plan – Ground-Borne Vibration ..................................................................12

2.5 Project Requirements ............................................................................................................................12

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS and significance ...................................................................................................13

3.1 Significance Thresholds..........................................................................................................................13

3.2 Impact 1. Permanent increase in ambient noise levels .........................................................................14

3.2.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................14

3.2.2 Existing Ambient Monitored Noise Levels..................................................................................14

3.2.3 Future Exterior Project Noise Levels...........................................................................................15

3.2.4 Operational Noise.......................................................................................................................17

3.2.5 Temporary increase in ambient noise levels ..............................................................................19

3.3 Impact 2. Excessive ground-borne vibration..........................................................................................22

3.4 Impact 3. Airport noise exposure...........................................................................................................23

4.0 Summary ...........................................................................................................................................................24

4.1 Summary of significance of impacts.......................................................................................................24

4.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................25 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 792 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
1 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report evaluates potential impacts associated with the construction and operation noise of the Canopy multifamily townhome development in Sebastopol, CA.

1.1 Project Description
The proposed project consists of residential structures on a 6-acre site with twenty (20) three-story townhome buildings containing approximately seventy-five (75) townhome units. The project is centrally located on the proposed site and is not immediately adjacent to any major arterials. It is bounded by W. County and Rodata Trails to the north, existing residential properties to the east, and existing commercial properties to the south and west.

The closest major arterial is Highway 116, located approximately 150 feet to the west.

1.2 Characteristics of Noise
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound and can be an undesirable by-product of society’s normal day-to-day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, causes actual physical harm, or has an adverse effect on health.

People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” However, the sound pressure magnitude can be objectively measured and quantified using a logarithmic ratio of pressures which yields the level of sound, utilizing the measurement scale of decibels (dB). The decibel is generally adjusted to the A-weighted level (dBA) which de-emphasizes very low frequencies to better approximate the human ear’s range of sensitivity. In practice, the noise level of a sound source is measured using a sound level meter that includes an electronic filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Table A.1 in Appendix A of this report defines the decibel along with other technical terms used in this analysis.

Even though the A-weighted scale accounts for the relative loudness perceived by the human ear and, therefore, is commonly used to quantify individual events or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response effects also depends on several other perceptibility factors, including:
• Ambient (background) sound level
• Magnitude of the event sound level relative to the background noise • Spectral (frequency) composition (e.g. presence of tones) • Duration of the sound event
• Number of event occurrences, repetitiveness, and intermittency • Time of day the event occurs.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 793 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
2 In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in human responses to daytime and nighttime noises. At night, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night, and exterior noise may become increasingly noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and have greater sensitivity to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a 24-hour descriptor, the Day-Night Level (Ldn) has been developed. The Ldn divides the 24-hour day into a daytime period of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a nighttime period of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. In determining the Ldn, noise levels occurring during the nighttime period are increased by 10 dB to account for the greater sensitivity during the nighttime periods.

The effects of noise on people fall into three general categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance and nuisance
• Interference with activities such as speech, sleep and learning • Physiological effects such as hearing loss
In most cases, the levels associated with environmental noise produce effects only in the first two categories.

However, workers in industrial plants may experience noise effects in the last category. There is no completely effective way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance, because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and degrees to which people become acclimated to noise.

Thus, an important way of determining a person's subjective reaction to a new noise source is by comparison to the existing environment to which they are accustomed (the “ambient environment”). In general, the more the level of a noise event exceeds the prevailing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the noise source will be to those exposed to it.

With regard to increases in A-weighted noise levels, the following relationships are applicable to this analysis:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1 dB change cannot be perceived. • Outside of a laboratory, a 3 dBA change will be generally perceivable by most people. • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is considered a noticeable change by most people. • A 10 dBA change will result in the perception of doubling or halving the loudness of the noise.

Common noise levels associated with various activities are shown in Figure 1.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 794 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
3 Figure 1 – Common Noise Levels
Noise sources are either “point sources”, such as stationary equipment or individual motor vehicles, or “line sources”, such as a roadway with a large number of mobile point sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a stationary point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites, and at a rate of 7.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” sites.1 For example, a 60 dBA noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dBA at 100 feet from the source and it would be 48 dBA at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively.2 Man-made or natural barriers can also attenuate sound levels.

The minimum attenuation of exterior to interior noise provided by typical structures is provided in Table 1. 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 97. A "hard" or reflective site does not provide any excess ground-effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt, concrete, and very hard packed soils. An acoustically "soft" or absorptive site is characteristic of normal earth and most ground with vegetation. 2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 97.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 795 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
4 Table 1 – Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation (dBA)
Building Type Open
Windows
Closed
Windows1
Residences 17 25
Schools 17 25
Churches 20 30
Hospitals/Convalescent Homes 17 25
Offices 17 25
Theaters 20 30
Hotels/Motels 17 25
Source: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117. 1 As shown, structures with closed windows can attenuate exterior noise by a minimum of 25 to 30 dBA.

1.3 Characteristics of Vibration
Vibration is minute variation in pressure through structures and the earth, whereas, noise is minute variation in pressure through air. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise; e.g., the rattling of windows from truck passbys. This phenomenon is related to the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Ground-borne vibration attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitude can be measured as peak particle velocity (PPV), the maximum instantaneous peak amplitude in inches per second, or root-mean-square (RMS) velocity in inches per second or as vibration level in decibels (VdB) referenced to 1 micro-inch per second. The ratio between the PPV and the maximum RMS amplitude is termed the “crest factor.” According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the PPV level for construction equipment is typically 1.7 to 6 times greater than the RMS vibration level. The FTA uses a crest factor of 4 for the conversion of PPV levels to RMS vibration levels. For the purposes of ground-borne vibration analysis of impacts to existing structures, vibration velocity is described in terms of PPV. For the analysis of the human response to vibration, VdB is utilized.

The vibration velocity threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB, and a vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people3.

Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Common ground-induced vibrations related to roadway traffic and construction activities pose no threat to buildings or structures. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration from traffic is barely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is typically the background vibration velocity, to 94 VdB. This 94 VdB vibration level corresponds to

0.2 PPV, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.
3 – U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006), p. 7-8.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 796 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
5 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Many government agencies have established noise regulations and policies to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise and ground-borne vibration.

The City of Sebastopol has adopted the Noise Hazards section of the General Plan, which is based in part on federal and State regulations and is intended to control, minimize or mitigate environmental noise effects. The regulations and policies that are relevant to project construction and operation noise are discussed below.

2.1 Applicable State Noise Standards
The State of California has adopted noise compatibility guidelines for general land use planning. The types of land uses addressed by the State standards and the acceptable noise categories for each land use are included in the State of California General Plan Guidelines, which is published and updated by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The level of acceptability of the noise environment is dependent upon the activity associated with the particular land use. According to the State, an exterior noise environment up to 65 CNEL is “normally acceptable” for single and multi-family residential uses, up to 75 CNEL is “conditionally acceptable” with special noise insulation requirements, while 75 CNEL and above is identified as "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for residential and hotel uses, respectively.4 The maximum allowable interior noise level for residential structures is 45 CNEL.

Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines establishes thresholds for the evaluation of significant impacts of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. Under these thresholds, a proposed project would have a significant noise impact if the project would result in:

1. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established by the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable state or other agencies;

2. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; and

3. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The CEQA Guidelines and the City’s General Plan provide no definition of what constitutes a substantial noise increase. Typically, in high noise environments, if the CNEL due to the project would increase by 3 dBA at noise sensitive receptors, the impact is considered significant. 4 – State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, (Sacramento, CA: State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, October 2003), p. 250.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 797 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
6 2.2 City of Sebastopol General Plan – Noise
The Noise section of the General Plan identifies noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. The City’s goal is to address major noise sources and to promote safe and comfortable noise levels throughout Sebastopol. The Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment from the Noise section of the General Plan is shown in Table 2 and is used to determine the compatibility of land uses when evaluating proposed development projects.

Table 2 – Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment For a residential development, the City’s land use compatibility indicates that the maximum “normally acceptable” exterior noise level is 60 Ldn. For a residential development with exterior noise levels up to 70 Ldn, the land use is “conditionally acceptable”, in which the specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 798 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
7 reduction requirements and noise insulation features included in the design. This study will review the exterior noise levels to verify it is within the range of acceptability per the City’s land use compatibility.

The City’s General Plan has also established noise standards for residential land uses impacted by stationary (nontransportation) sources, such as mechanical equipment or similar. The standards do not apply to transportation sources, such as car pass-by’s or emergency vehicles. See Table 3 for the criteria for stationary (non-transportation) sources.

Table 3 – Stationary (Non-Transportation) Noise Source Standards Note b) indicates that the criteria are to be reduced by 5 dBA for tonal noises characterized by a whine, screech, or hum, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. Note c) indicates that in situations where the existing noise levels at a project site exceed the noise levels per the standards, the new noise sources must include mitigation that reduces the noise level to the existing ambient, plus 3 dB. For example, if the existing ambient noise level was 60 dBA Leq, the nearest receiving residential property impacted by stationary noise sources within the proposed development must meet a noise level of 63 dBA Leq at the receiving property.

Lastly, the City’s General Plan includes a list of various policies and actions to meet Goal N-1 set forth by the City to preserve an appropriate noise environment and enhance the quality of existing and future land uses by minimizing exposure to harmful and excessive noise. The policies and actions listed below to achieve the goal, limited to those applicable to the project:

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 799 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
8 Policy N 1-1: Ensure the noise compatibility of existing and future developments when making land use planning decisions.

Policy N 1-2: Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards (see Table 2) to ensure acceptable noise levels for existing and future development.

Policy N 1-3: Require new development to mitigate excessive noise through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-reducing materials.

Policy N 1-4: Require mixed-use projects to minimize noise exposure for indoor areas of nearby residential areas through the use of noise attenuating building materials, engineering techniques, and site design practices. Site design practices may include locating mechanical equipment, loading bays, parking lots, driveways, and trash enclosures away from residential uses, and providing noise-attenuating screening features on-site.

Policy N 1-6: Require acoustical studies for new developments, projects seeking use permits related to activities that would increase noise levels, and transportation improvements that affect noise-sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, group care facilities, convalescent homes, and residential areas.

Policy N 1-7: For projects that are required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze noise impacts, the following criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts:

Stationary and Non-Transportation Noise Sources
• A significant impact will occur if the project results in exceedance of the noise level standards contained in the Noise Element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB, whichever is greater. This does not apply to construction activities which are conducted according to the best practices outlined in Action N-1f. Compliance with the requirements outlined in Action N-1f shall be sufficient to reduce construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level.

Transportation Noise Sources
• Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noisesensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 800 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
9 • Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and
• Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise will be considered significant.

Policy N 1-8: Support noise-compatible land uses along existing and future roadways, including County, State, and Federal routes.

Policy N 1-11: Ensure that existing development is protected, to the greatest extent feasible, from noise impacts due to construction on adjacent or nearby properties through implementation of best practices, as outlined in Action N-1f.

Policy N 1-13: Control non-transportation related noise from site specific noise sources to the standards shown in Table 3.

Policy N 1-14: Ensure that new development does not result in indoor noise levels exceeding 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses.

Policy N 1-15: Require construction activities to comply with standard best practices (see Action N-1f).

Policy N 1-18: Ensure that an acceptable noise environment is maintained in residential areas and areas with sensitive uses by ensuring that uses, operations, and fixed equipment maintain compliance with City standards and by providing for the regulation of short-term increases in non-transportation noise levels through the Municipal Code.

In conjunction with the policies defined herein, the City has provided a list of actions to ensure that Goal N-1 of the General Plan is being achieved. Applicable actions associated with the project are as follows, with the exception of Action N-1a which is associated with updating of the City’s Municipal Code:

Action N-1b: Continue to implement and enforce the requirements of Chapter 8.25 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code in order to reduce nuisance noise from stationary sources near residential areas.

Action N-1c: Review new development projects for compliance with the noise requirements established in the City’s Noise Element, including the standards established in Table 2 and Table 3. Where necessary, require mitigation measures to achieve noise standards.

Action N-1d: Require acoustical studies for all new discretionary projects, including those related to development and transportation, which have the potential to generate noise impacts which Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 801 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
10 exceed the standards identified in the City’s Noise Element. The studies shall include representative noise measurements, estimates of existing and projected noise levels, and mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Element and relevant noise standards in the Sebastopol Municipal Code.

Action N-1f: Require construction projects that may generate excessive noise impacts to implement the following types of standard best practices, as applicable, to reduce construction noise impacts to the extent feasible:
• Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited as specified in the Noise Ordinance. • All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. • Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible. • Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.
• The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 802 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
11 2.3 City of Sebastopol Municipal Code – Chapter 8.25, Noise Ordinance The goal of the City’s Noise Ordinance is to prohibit unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises, subject to its police power. There are various sections of the Noise Ordinance that are directly related and applicable to the project.

Section 8.25.060 establishes the noise level standards for residential land uses as provided in Table 4, which are consistent with Table 3 from the Noise Element within the City’s General Plan.

Table 4 – City of Sebastopol Noise Level Standards
Exterior Noise Standards
Monday thru Friday
8:00 am – 10:00 pm 55 dBA
10:00 pm – 8:00 am 45 dBA
Saturday and Sundays before Observed Holidays
9:00 am – 10:00 pm 55 dBA
10:00 pm – 9:00 am 45 dBA
Sunday
9:00 am – 7:00 pm 55 dBA
7:00 pm – 9:00 am 45 dBA
Item 4 within section 8.25.060 is specifically for areas with high background noise and impulse noise. It states in cases where the background noise levels caused by sources not subject to these regulations exceed the standards listed in Table 4, a source shall be considered to cause excessive noise if the noise emitted by such source exceeds the background noise levels by 5 dBA, provided that no source subject to the provisions of the Noise Ordinance shall emit noise in excess of 80 dBA at any time. Item 4 also states no person shall cause or allow the emission of impulse noise in excess of 80 dB peak sound pressure level during the nighttime to any residential zone or in excess of 100 dB peak sound pressure level at any time in any zone.

Item 6 within section 8.25.060 lists exemptions to the Noise Ordinance, which are as follows:
• Noise generated by any construction equipment which is operated during daytime hours, defined for the purposes of this section as from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Sundays.
• Noise created as a result of or relating to an emergency. • Noise from demolition work conducted during daytime hours (see Table 4). When considered emergency work, demolition shall be exempted at all times from the noise levels in the Noise Ordinance. • Noise created by any aircraft flight operations which are specifically permitted by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 803 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
12 • Noise created by any recreational activities on public property which are permitted by law and for which a license or permit has been granted by the City, including but not limited to parades, sporting events, concerts, and fireworks displays.
• Noise created by blasting other than that conducted in connection with construction activities shall be exempted; provided, that the blasting is conducted between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm local time at specified hours previously announced to the local public; and provided, that a permit for such blasting is obtained from the appropriate Federal, State or local authorities. • Noise created by refuse and solid waste collection; provided, that the activity is conducted during daytime hours (see Table 4).
• Noise generated by the police and other established shooting facilities as permitted by California law.

Therefore, per the City’s Noise Ordinance, the noise emitted by the project itself must comply with the City’s Noise Level Standards as defined in Table 4. This would apply to items such as mechanical equipment, outdoor common areas, or similar uses. Construction noise is exempt from the Noise Ordinance provided that it occurs during the hours listed within the ordinance and that construction activities follow the best practices defined in the General Plan described in section 2.2.

2.4 City of Sebastopol General Plan – Ground-Borne Vibration The City’s General Plan, within its policies and actions to achieve Goal N-1 described in section 2.2, lists requirements associated with construction vibration. Policy N 1-16 is directly applicable to the project and to all construction associated with the development, which is listed below:

Policy N 1-16: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. A vibration limit of 0.30 in/sec PPV (peak particle velocity) will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage at buildings of normal conventional construction.

Therefore, in order to comply with the City’s General Plan, any vibration associated with the construction of the project must be limited to 0.30 in/sec PPV.

2.5 Project Requirements
The requirements described herein for the project are summarized in Table 5.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 804 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
13 Table 5 – Project Requirements
Activity Standard
Land Use Compatibility Exterior noise level at project site is no greater than 70 dB Ldn Stationary and
Non-Transportation Sources
Noise generated by the project does not:
• Increase the existing daytime or nighttime ambient by 3 dB • Exceed 55 dBA during daytime hours (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) • Exceed 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) Transportation Noise Sources
Traffic noise increase due to the project is less than:
• 5 dB Ldn at areas where existing noise is less than 60 dB Ldn • 3 dB Ldn at areas where existing noise is between 60 and 65 dB Ldn • 1.5 dB Ldn at areas where existing noise is greater than 65 dB Ldn Interior Noise in Residences Levels are no greater than 45 Ldn Construction Noise
Construction is limited between the hours of:
• 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Friday
• 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Saturdays and Sundays
Construction follows best practices as defined in:
• Action N-1f within the City’s General Plan (see section 2.2) Vibration Levels are no greater than 0.30 in/sec PPV at nearest sensitive receptors

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SIGNIFICANCE

3.1 Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds are used to evaluate the potential significance of the project noise impacts, as defined within the Noise Element of the City of Sebastopol General Plan and consistent with the State standards:
• For ambient noise level increases associated with permanent stationary and non-transportation noise sources, if the project results in exceedance of the noise level standards contained in the Noise Element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB, whichever is greater. • For ambient noise level increases associated with new transportation noise sources, where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. • For temporary noise level increases associated with construction activities, compliance with the requirements outlined in Action N-1f within the General Plan in addition to construction activities occurring during the hours indicated per the Noise Ordinance.
• For temporary vibration sources, if the project’s construction exceeds the limit of 0.30 in/sec PPV, which has the potential for cosmetic damage at buildings of normal conventional construction.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 805 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
14 3.2 Impact 1. Permanent increase in ambient noise levels Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?

3.2.1 Methodology
Analysis of the existing and future noise environments presented in this section is based on technical reports, noise monitoring, and noise prediction modeling. Noise modeling procedures involved the calculation of existing and future vehicular noise levels along individual roadway segments. This was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) published the “Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS)” in October of 1998 which defines how to predict traffic noise for projects in California. The TeNS, Section N-5520 requires that any traffic noise study conducted after March 30, 2000 utilize the calculation methods used by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site conditions. The off-site traffic noise is analyzed on an increase in Ldn basis to determine the project’s impact.

Traffic volumes utilized as data inputs to the noise prediction model are calculated based on information provided in the traffic study by Memorandum of Assumptions for The City Ventures Canopy Project Traffic Study, dated July 10, 2023, and information available in Caltrans web site.

3.2.2 Existing Ambient Monitored Noise Levels
The proposed project site is bounded by W. County and Rodata Trails to the north, existing residential properties to the east, and existing commercial properties to the south and west in Sebastopol, CA. The closest major arterial is Highway 116, located approximately 150 feet to the west. Traffic from Highway 116 is the primary source of noise in the general area of the site.

To establish existing ambient noise levels in areas surrounding the project site, a field monitoring study was conducted. Measurements were performed in and around the project site for documenting the ambient conditions.

NTi XL2 sound level meters were used for this purpose, which satisfy the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. Vehicular traffic is the predominant noise source around the project site. Measurements were performed at several locations as shown in Figure 2. The measurements occurred at these locations on May 9th and 10th, 2023. Noise readings were measured over 5-minute intervals with “A” frequency slow time weighting. The weather conditions were normal, and no anomalies were present during the survey periods.

Table 6 provides the noise level data associated with each monitoring period for each location. As shown, Ldn noise levels ranged from 57 dBA closest to Highway 116 to 47 dBA at the back of the property. Position L1 was intended Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 806 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
15 to capture the noise levels nearest to the proposed outdoor area for the project, whereas position L2 was intended to primarily capture traffic noise from Highway 116. The Exterior Noise Standards set forth by the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan and by the Noise Ordinance are described in Table 2 and Table 5. Per Table 2, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment Normally Acceptable levels is 60 Ldn and the measured levels are below the above criteria.

Figure 2 – The Canopy Project Site and Noise Monitoring Locations Table 6 – Existing Ambient Monitored Noise Levels
Position Primary Noise
Source Time
Day time
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
24-hour
Noise Level
(dBA Ldn)
L1 General Ambient 4:00 pm – 3:00 pm (next day) 46 38 47 L2 Highway 116 4:00 pm – 3:00 pm (next day) 55 48 57
S1 Harlbut Avenue 2:55 pm – 3:10 pm 50 N/A N/A
Notes:

Noise measurements taken on May 9 and May 10, 2023.

Source: Veneklasen Associates Inc., 2023.

3.2.3 Future Exterior Project Noise Levels
The future traffic conditions (AADT) for the local roads were not available in the City of Sebastopol or in the provided Transportation Impact Analysis Report for the project.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 807 of 1220 ends

The Canopy Environmental Impact Report – CEQA Noise Report September 12, 2023
16 Per the Caltrans website, the AADT traffic count on Highway 116 is 16400 for the year 2013 and 16700 for the year 2020.The traffic increment is 1.8 percent for 7 years. Using the above calculation, the predicted year 2033 AADT traffic count on Highway 116 will be 17117. Per the memorandum of Assumptions for The City Ventures Canopy Project Traffic Study, the trip generation due to the project is 684, and the total future traffic count (AADT) is approximately 17801 in the Year 2033.

The predicted exterior noise levels are less than the City of Sebastopol General Plan, Normally Acceptable criteria level for residential zones of Ldn 60. Based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction model, the future noise level at the L1 and L2 from Highway 116 will be 49 Ldn and 58 Ldn, respectively. The noise levels generated by the project due to traffic cause less than a 5 Ldn increase in the existing ambient levels at the site, and therefore the impact due to project traffic is less than significant.

Further, interior noise levels in the residential spaces of the project depend on the wall construction material and glazing used for windows and doors. Veneklasen calculated the interior noise level using the predicted future exterior noise level with project contribution. The drawings do not show the exterior wall composition and the glazing area on the exterior wall. Veneklasen assumes that the exterior wall will consist of a coat of stucco over sheathing on wood stud with a single layer of gypsum board on the interior and batt insulation in the cavity. Also, the window/door opening to the exterior wall is assumed to be 40 to 60 percent respectively. Figure 3 shows the zoning area based on the noise distribution, and Table 7 shows the windows and doors with STC rating of the glazing as described in Appendix C. The impact is less than significant with Mitigation 1 described below.

Table 7 – Calculated Interior LDN
Location Floor Exterior LDN (dB)
Window/ Door
Rating
5 Interior LDN (dB)
Zone A All 55 – 60 STC 28 43 – 45
Remaining Units All ≤ 55 No STC requirement.

STC 28 recommended.
5 STC rating does not fully specify the building element performance. Refer to Appendix C.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Page 808 of 1220 ends

Sebastopol City CouncilApril 2, 2024

Sebastopol City Council
April 2, 2024