Agenda — St. Helena City Council, May 1, 2023 (part 21 of 26)

HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project
11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 Existing Plus Project Synchro 10 Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 201 18 19 226 4 13 0 22 9 0 16
Future Vol, veh/h 14 201 18 19 226 4 13 0 22 9 0 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 85 - - 90 - - 110 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 15 214 19 20 240 4 14 0 23 10 0 17
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 246 0 0 233 0 0 545 540 224 549 547 244 Stage 1 - - - - - - 254 254 - 284 284 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 291 286 - 265 263 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1314 - - 1329 - - 448 447 813 445 443 792 Stage 1 - - - - - - 748 695 - 721 675 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 715 673 - 738 689 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1311 - - 1329 - - 430 434 813 423 431 790 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 430 434 - 423 431 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 740 687 - 712 664 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 689 662 - 709 681 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.6 11.1 11.3

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 430 813 1311 - - 1329 - - 602
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 0.029 0.011 - - 0.015 - - 0.044 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.7 9.6 7.8 - - 7.8 - - 11.3
HCM Lane LOS B A A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 2996 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project
12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 Existing Plus Project Synchro 10 Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 112 120 127 471 423 127
Future Vol, veh/h 112 120 127 471 423 127
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - 225
Veh in Median Storage, # 2 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 118 126 134 496 445 134
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1209 445 579 0 - 0
Stage 1 445 - - - - -
Stage 2 764 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 201 611 990 - - -
Stage 1 644 - - - - -
Stage 2 458 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 174 611 990 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 370 - - - - -
Stage 1 557 - - - - -
Stage 2 458 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21 2 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 990 - 465 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.135 - 0.525 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - 21 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 3 - -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 2997 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project
13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 Existing Plus Project Synchro 10 Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 15 560 23 8 522
Future Vol, veh/h 28 15 560 23 8 522
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 1 0 1 1 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 50 100 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 29 16 583 24 8 544
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1144 585 0 0 608 0
Stage 1 584 - - - - -
Stage 2 560 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 220 509 - - 966 -
Stage 1 555 - - - - -
Stage 2 570 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 218 508 - - 965 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 355 - - - - -
Stage 1 554 - - - - -
Stage 2 565 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.2 0 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 397 965 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.113 0.009 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.2 8.8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 2998 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 50 50 20 60 80 40 610 20 120 610 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 50 50 20 60 80 40 610 20 120 610 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 112 56 56 22 67 90 45 685 22 135 685 124 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 183 83 68 68 143 168 189 878 28 322 750 136
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 618 417 345 116 719 845 669 1270 41 735 1086 197 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 224 0 0 179 0 0 45 0 707 135 0 809 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1379 0 0 1680 0 0 669 0 1311 735 0 1282 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 32.4 13.5 0.0 47.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 52.7 0.0 32.4 45.8 0.0 47.3 Prop In Lane 0.50 0.25 0.12 0.50 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 334 0 0 378 0 0 189 0 906 322 0 886 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.78 0.42 0.00 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 0 0 577 0 0 266 0 1055 407 0 1032 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 0.0 0.0 32.2 0.0 0.0 33.6 0.0 9.3 24.7 0.0 11.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.7 1.2 0.0 11.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.8 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 8.6 2.3 0.0 12.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.0 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 13.0 25.9 0.0 23.1 LnGrp LOS D A A C A A C A B C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 224 179 752 944
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.0 32.9 14.3 23.5
Approach LOS D C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 66.5 22.9 66.5 22.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 * 5.2 * 4.7 * 5.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 72 * 29 * 72 * 29
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 54.7 16.0 49.3 10.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.1 1.0 10.1 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 2999 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 2: Main St & Adams St Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 90 40 30 70 40 50 570 50 70 540 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 90 40 30 70 40 50 570 50 70 540 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.95 0.91 0.96 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 98 43 33 76 43 54 620 54 76 587 76 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 133 169 65 97 187 91 136 656 57 158 641 83
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.55 0.55 0.09 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 397 880 337 229 971 473 1767 1194 104 1767 1142 148 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 206 0 0 152 0 0 54 0 674 76 0 663
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1614 0 0 1674 0 0 1767 0 1298 1767 0 1290 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 40.5 3.4 0.0 38.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 40.5 3.4 0.0 38.6 Prop In Lane 0.32 0.21 0.22 0.28 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 367 0 0 374 0 0 136 0 713 158 0 724 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.95 0.48 0.00 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 512 0 0 524 0 0 340 0 937 340 0 931 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.8 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 0.0 36.5 0.0 17.6 36.0 0.0 16.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 13.7 0.8 0.0 10.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.8 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 13.6 1.5 0.0 12.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.3 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 31.3 36.9 0.0 26.5 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A D A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 206 152 728 739
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.3 30.0 31.7 27.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.1 51.4 20.7 12.1 50.4 20.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 * 60 * 24 * 16 * 60 * 24 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 40.6 8.4 5.4 42.5 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.3 0.0 3.2 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3000 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
3: Main St & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 20 650 110 20 590
Future Vol, veh/h 41 20 650 110 20 590
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 0 5 5 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 85 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 43 21 677 115 21 615
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1397 742 0 0 797 0
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 657 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 155 414 - - 821 -
Stage 1 470 - - - - -
Stage 2 514 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 150 411 - - 817 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 289 - - - - -
Stage 1 468 - - - - -
Stage 2 501 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19 0 0.3

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 320 817 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.199 0.025 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 19 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3001 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 170 201 40 150 80 610 80 100 521 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 170 201 40 150 80 610 80 100 521 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 183 216 43 161 86 656 86 108 560 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 0 117 180 250 50 243 108 657 31 131 696 14
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.53 0.53 0.07 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1856 1324 1486 296 1443 1767 1137 149 1767 1288 25 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 183 259 0 161 86 0 742 108 0 571 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1856 1324 1781 0 1443 1767 0 1286 1767 0 1314 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 20.1 0.0 14.9 6.8 0.0 75.0 8.6 0.0 50.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 20.1 0.0 14.9 6.8 0.0 75.0 8.6 0.0 50.3 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 117 180 300 0 243 108 0 688 131 0 709 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.86 0.00 0.66 0.80 0.00 1.08 0.83 0.00 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 117 180 438 0 355 310 0 678 310 0 709 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 62.7 57.6 0.0 55.4 65.9 0.0 33.7 65.0 0.0 26.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 71.7 11.5 0.0 3.1 5.0 0.0 57.4 4.9 0.0 6.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 261.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 10.1 10.1 0.0 5.7 3.3 0.0 84.3 4.1 0.0 16.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 134.4 69.0 0.0 58.5 70.9 0.0 352.7 69.9 0.0 32.9 LnGrp LOS A A F E A E E A F E A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 183 420 828 679
Approach Delay, s/veh 134.4 65.0 323.4 38.8
Approach LOS F E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 84.5 31.7 14.2 82.7 13.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 * 7.7 * 7.7 3.7 * 7.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 75 * 35 25.0 * 75 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 52.3 22.1 10.6 77.0 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.7 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 164.0
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3002 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 150 10 20 120 20
Future Vol, veh/h 30 150 10 20 120 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 2 0 1 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 36 181 12 24 145 24
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 219 0 178 130
Stage 1 - - - - 129 -
Stage 2 - - - - 49 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1344 - 809 917
Stage 1 - - - - 894 -
Stage 2 - - - - 971 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1341 - 799 914
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 799 -
Stage 1 - - - - 892 -
Stage 2 - - - - 961 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.6 10.6

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 814 - - 1341 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.207 - - 0.009 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 - - 7.7 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3003 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th AWSC 2040 GP Buildout
6: Railroad Ave & Adams St Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 100 80 20 50 40 80 110 60 60 70 20 Future Vol, veh/h 30 100 80 20 50 40 80 110 60 60 70 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 35 116 93 23 58 47 93 128 70 70 81 23
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 11.1 9.7 11.8 10.4

HCM LOS B A B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 32% 14% 18% 40%
Vol Thru, % 44% 48% 45% 47%
Vol Right, % 24% 38% 36% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 250 210 110 150
LT Vol 80 30 20 60
Through Vol 110 100 50 70
RT Vol 60 80 40 20
Lane Flow Rate 291 244 128 174
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.416 0.353 0.192 0.262
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.157 5.205 5.416 5.408
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 698 691 661 663
Service Time 3.19 3.239 3.456 3.446
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.417 0.353 0.194 0.262
HCM Control Delay 11.8 11.1 9.7 10.4
HCM Lane LOS B B A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 1.6 0.7 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3004 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 60 20 10 41 190 10 10 10 140 10 10 Future Vol, veh/h 50 60 20 10 41 190 10 10 10 140 10 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 15 0 15 15 0 15 0 0 4 4 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 60 72 24 12 49 229 12 12 12 169 12 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 293 0 0 111 0 0 419 536 103 423 434 179 Stage 1 - - - - - - 219 219 - 203 203 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 200 317 - 220 231 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1263 - - 1473 - - 543 450 949 539 514 861 Stage 1 - - - - - - 781 720 - 797 732 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 800 652 - 780 711 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1245 - - 1452 - - 494 411 932 487 469 849 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 494 411 - 487 469 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 730 674 - 745 714 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 768 636 - 715 665 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 3.1 0.3 12.1 16.7

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 542 1245 - - 1452 - - 499
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.067 0.048 - - 0.008 - - 0.386
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.1 8 0 - 7.5 0 - 16.7
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.2 - - 0 - - 1.8
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3005 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
8: Library Ln & Adams St Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 8 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 90 30 0 31 10 10 0 0 0 0 10
Future Vol, veh/h 40 90 30 0 31 10 10 0 0 0 0 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 3 3 0 5 1 0 2 2 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 53 118 39 0 41 13 13 0 0 0 0 13
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 59 0 0 160 0 0 302 306 143 299 319 54 Stage 1 - - - - - - 247 247 - 53 53 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 55 59 - 246 266 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1538 - - 1413 - - 648 606 902 651 596 1010 Stage 1 - - - - - - 755 700 - 957 849 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 955 844 - 756 687 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1531 - - 1409 - - 619 578 898 628 569 1004 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 619 578 - 628 569 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 724 671 - 916 845 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 942 840 - 726 659 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.9 0 10.9 8.6

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 619 1531 - - 1409 - - 1004
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 0.034 - - - - - 0.013
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 7.4 0 - 0 - - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3006 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th AWSC 2040 GP Buildout
9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 9 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.1
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 20 80 20 30 0 110 8 10 0 26 15
Future Vol, veh/h 5 20 80 20 30 0 110 8 10 0 26 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 5 24 94 24 35 0 129 9 12 0 28 16
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.7 8 8.6 7.6

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 86% 5% 40% 0%
Vol Thru, % 6% 19% 60% 63%
Vol Right, % 8% 76% 0% 37%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 128 105 50 41
LT Vol 110 5 20 0
Through Vol 8 20 30 26
RT Vol 10 80 0 15
Lane Flow Rate 150 123 59 45
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.189 0.138 0.075 0.053
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.537 4.026 4.613 4.299
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 796 892 778 834
Service Time 2.537 2.04 2.63 2.318
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.188 0.138 0.076 0.054
HCM Control Delay 8.6 7.7 8 7.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3007 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
10: Pope Street & Starr Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 210 390 90 101 31
Future Vol, veh/h 10 210 390 90 101 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 0 4 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 236 438 101 113 35
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 543 0 - 0 751 494
Stage 1 - - - - 493 -
Stage 2 - - - - 258 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1021 - - - 377 573
Stage 1 - - - - 612 -
Stage 2 - - - - 783 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1017 - - - 369 570
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 369 -
Stage 1 - - - - 602 -
Stage 2 - - - - 780 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 19.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1017 - - - 402
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - - 0.369
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 0 - - 19.1
HCM Lane LOS A A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 1.7
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3008 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 181 120 90 320 10 120 0 50 10 10 20 Future Vol, veh/h 20 181 120 90 320 10 120 0 50 10 10 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 85 - - 90 - - 110 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 23 206 136 102 364 11 136 0 57 11 11 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 375 0 0 342 0 0 911 899 274 923 962 370 Stage 1 - - - - - - 320 320 - 574 574 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 591 579 - 349 388 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1211 - - 254 278 762 249 255 673 Stage 1 - - - - - - 690 651 - 502 502 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 492 499 - 665 607 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1211 - - 218 250 762 212 229 673 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 218 250 - 212 229 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 676 638 - 492 460 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 425 457 - 603 595 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 1.8 35.2 17.6

HCM LOS E C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 218 762 1178 - - 1211 - - 332
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.626 0.075 0.019 - - 0.084 - - 0.137 HCM Control Delay (s) 45.6 10.1 8.1 - - 8.2 - - 17.6
HCM Lane LOS E B A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.7 0.2 0.1 - - 0.3 - - 0.5
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3009 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 8.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 140 101 220 480 450 220
Future Vol, veh/h 140 101 220 480 450 220
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - 225
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 146 105 229 500 469 229
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1427 469 698 0 - 0
Stage 1 469 - - - - -
Stage 2 958 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 148 592 894 - - -
Stage 1 628 - - - - -
Stage 2 371 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 110 592 894 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 238 - - - - -
Stage 1 467 - - - - -
Stage 2 371 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 48.1 3.3 0

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 894 - 318 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.256 - 0.789 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - 48.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - 6.4 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3010 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 10 580 40 10 640
Future Vol, veh/h 30 10 580 40 10 640
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 50 100 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 31 10 598 41 10 660
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1278 598 0 0 639 0
Stage 1 598 - - - - -
Stage 2 680 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 183 500 - - 940 -
Stage 1 547 - - - - -
Stage 2 501 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 181 500 - - 940 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 319 - - - - -
Stage 1 547 - - - - -
Stage 2 495 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.6 0 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 351 940 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.117 0.011 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.6 8.9 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3011 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 120 50 20 20 50 180 30 650 20 80 600 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 120 50 20 20 50 180 30 650 20 80 600 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1329 1329 1329 1870 1329 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 122 51 20 20 51 184 31 663 20 82 612 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 218 84 26 68 84 257 446 838 25 251 1093 109
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Sat Flow, veh/h 652 397 121 70 401 1220 765 1283 39 539 1673 167 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 193 0 0 255 0 0 31 0 683 82 0 673
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1170 0 0 1691 0 0 765 0 1322 539 0 1840 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 27.0 9.4 0.0 14.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 27.0 36.4 0.0 14.6 Prop In Lane 0.63 0.10 0.08 0.72 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.09
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 327 0 0 410 0 0 446 0 864 251 0 1202 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.79 0.33 0.00 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 572 0 0 708 0 0 701 0 1305 431 0 1817 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 9.1 22.1 0.0 6.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.6 1.1 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 6.8 1.2 0.0 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.5 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 11.7 23.2 0.0 7.5 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A B A B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 193 255 714 755
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.5 28.0 11.7 9.2
Approach LOS C C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.3 20.6 52.3 20.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 * 5.2 * 4.7 * 5.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 72 * 29 * 72 * 29
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.0 13.9 38.4 12.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.4 0.9 9.2 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3012 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 2: Main St & Adams St Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 100 30 70 80 70 40 550 40 80 520 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 100 30 70 80 70 40 550 40 80 520 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.93 0.87 0.97 0.84 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1329 1329 1870 1329 1329 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 103 31 72 82 72 41 567 41 82 536 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 165 185 48 146 147 108 121 609 44 171 643 49 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 456 840 217 384 669 492 1781 1214 88 1781 1214 93 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 216 0 0 226 0 0 41 0 608 82 0 577
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1513 0 0 1545 0 0 1781 0 1302 1781 0 1307 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 33.8 3.4 0.0 28.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 33.8 3.4 0.0 28.8 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.14 0.32 0.32 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 398 0 0 402 0 0 121 0 653 171 0 692 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.93 0.48 0.00 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 527 0 0 530 0 0 368 0 1008 368 0 1012 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 18.1 33.2 0.0 15.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.0 0.8 0.0 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.6 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 10.7 1.5 0.0 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.6 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 26.1 33.9 0.0 18.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A D A C C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 216 226 649 659
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.6 27.8 26.7 20.0
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.0 45.7 21.8 12.2 43.5 21.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 * 60 * 24 * 16 * 60 * 24 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 30.8 11.8 5.4 35.8 11.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.0 3.0 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3013 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
3: Main St & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 30 600 81 30 590
Future Vol, veh/h 60 30 600 81 30 590
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 12 12 0 1 54 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 85 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 63 32 632 85 32 621
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1426 741 0 0 771 0
Stage 1 729 - - - - -
Stage 2 697 - - - - -
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 149 416 - - 844 -
Stage 1 477 - - - - -
Stage 2 494 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 134 390 - - 801 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 271 - - - - -
Stage 1 453 - - - - -
Stage 2 469 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.3 0 0.5

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 302 801 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.314 0.039 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 22.3 9.7 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.3 0.1 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3014 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 210 161 30 120 100 561 71 110 531 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 210 161 30 120 100 561 71 110 531 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1329 1329 1870 1329 1329 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 223 171 32 128 106 597 76 117 565 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 122 209 210 39 206 129 687 29 141 714 14
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.53 0.53 0.08 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1444 1512 283 1483 1781 1148 146 1781 1298 25 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 223 203 0 128 106 0 673 117 0 576 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1444 1795 0 1483 1781 0 1294 1781 0 1323 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 14.6 0.0 10.8 7.8 0.0 67.2 8.6 0.0 47.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 14.6 0.0 10.8 7.8 0.0 67.2 8.6 0.0 47.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 122 209 249 0 206 129 0 716 141 0 728 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.81 0.00 0.62 0.82 0.00 0.94 0.83 0.00 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 127 213 472 0 390 335 0 730 335 0 746 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 59.7 57.6 0.0 55.9 63.0 0.0 31.4 62.6 0.0 24.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 80.8 2.5 0.0 1.1 4.8 0.0 19.5 4.7 0.0 5.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 224.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 12.1 7.1 0.0 4.3 3.9 0.0 71.7 4.3 0.0 15.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 140.5 60.1 0.0 57.1 67.8 0.0 275.3 67.2 0.0 29.8 LnGrp LOS A A F E A E E A F E A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 223 331 779 693
Approach Delay, s/veh 140.5 58.9 247.0 36.1
Approach LOS F E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 79.6 26.4 14.3 78.7 13.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 * 7.7 * 7.7 3.7 * 7.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 75 * 35 25.0 * 75 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 49.2 16.6 10.6 69.2 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.8 1.0 0.1 1.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 132.4
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3015 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 110 10 30 210 10
Future Vol, veh/h 30 110 10 30 210 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 2 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 36 133 12 36 253 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 171 0 165 106
Stage 1 - - - - 105 -
Stage 2 - - - - 60 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1406 - 826 948
Stage 1 - - - - 919 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1403 - 817 945
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 817 -
Stage 1 - - - - 917 -
Stage 2 - - - - 954 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.9 11.5

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 822 - - 1403 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.322 - - 0.009 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 - - 7.6 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 - - 0 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3016 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th AWSC 2040 GP Buildout
6: Railroad Ave & Adams St Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 130 90 60 150 100 60 90 30 60 80 30 Future Vol, veh/h 20 130 90 60 150 100 60 90 30 60 80 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 137 95 63 158 105 63 95 32 63 84 32
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 11.6 13.1 11.4 11.2

HCM LOS B B B B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 33% 8% 19% 35%
Vol Thru, % 50% 54% 48% 47%
Vol Right, % 17% 38% 32% 18%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 180 240 310 170
LT Vol 60 20 60 60
Through Vol 90 130 150 80
RT Vol 30 90 100 30
Lane Flow Rate 189 253 326 179
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.304 0.374 0.477 0.288
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.78 5.327 5.264 5.798
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 620 672 682 617
Service Time 3.842 3.383 3.317 3.862
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.305 0.376 0.478 0.29
HCM Control Delay 11.4 11.6 13.1 11.2
HCM Lane LOS B B B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 1.7 2.6 1.2
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3017 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 81 10 10 50 140 10 10 10 190 10 20 Future Vol, veh/h 30 81 10 10 50 140 10 10 10 190 10 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 31 0 1 1 0 31 7 0 5 5 0 7
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 34 92 11 11 57 159 11 11 11 216 11 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 247 0 0 104 0 0 350 436 104 372 362 175 Stage 1 - - - - - - 167 167 - 190 190 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 183 269 - 182 172 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1319 - - 1488 - - 605 514 951 585 565 868 Stage 1 - - - - - - 835 760 - 812 743 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 819 687 - 820 756 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1280 - - 1487 - - 558 480 946 533 527 837 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 558 480 - 533 527 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 811 738 - 766 714 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 772 660 - 772 734 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2 0.4 11.3 16.8

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 608 1280 - - 1487 - - 551
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.056 0.027 - - 0.008 - - 0.454
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 7.9 0 - 7.4 0 - 16.8
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 2.3
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3018 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
8: Library Ln & Adams St Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 8 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 70 51 10 0 90 0 40 0 10 10 10 50
Future Vol, veh/h 70 51 10 0 90 0 40 0 10 10 10 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 8 8 0 4 4 0 6 6 0 4
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 86 63 12 0 111 0 49 0 12 12 12 62
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 115 0 0 83 0 0 401 364 83 368 370 119 Stage 1 - - - - - - 249 249 - 115 115 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 152 115 - 253 255 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1474 - - 1514 - - 560 564 976 588 560 933 Stage 1 - - - - - - 755 701 - 890 800 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 850 800 - 751 696 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1468 - - 1502 - - 484 523 963 548 520 926 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 484 523 - 548 520 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 704 653 - 832 797 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 778 797 - 692 648 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 4.1 0 12.6 10.3

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 537 1468 - - 1502 - - 765
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.115 0.059 - - - - - 0.113
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 7.6 0 - 0 - - 10.3
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.4
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3019 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th AWSC 2040 GP Buildout
9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 9 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 20 100 10 20 0 90 29 10 0 17 10
Future Vol, veh/h 17 20 100 10 20 0 90 29 10 0 17 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 18 23 114 11 23 0 102 32 11 0 18 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.8 8.4 7.5

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 70% 12% 33% 0%
Vol Thru, % 22% 15% 67% 63%
Vol Right, % 8% 73% 0% 37%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 129 137 30 27
LT Vol 90 17 10 0
Through Vol 29 20 20 17
RT Vol 10 100 0 10
Lane Flow Rate 145 155 34 29
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.176 0.171 0.043 0.035
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.377 3.983 4.563 4.294
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 807 906 788 836
Service Time 2.475 1.986 2.57 2.306
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.18 0.171 0.043 0.035
HCM Control Delay 8.4 7.8 7.8 7.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3020 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
10: Pope Street & Starr Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 260 300 81 110 21
Future Vol, veh/h 31 260 300 81 110 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 34 283 326 88 120 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 414 0 - 0 721 370
Stage 1 - - - - 370 -
Stage 2 - - - - 351 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - - 394 676
Stage 1 - - - - 699 -
Stage 2 - - - - 713 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - - 380 676
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 380 -
Stage 1 - - - - 675 -
Stage 2 - - - - 713 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0 18.4

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1145 - - - 409
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - - 0.348
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - - 18.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1.5
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3021 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 300 40 20 301 10 40 0 30 10 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 40 300 40 20 301 10 40 0 30 10 0 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 85 - - 90 - - 110 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 41 309 41 21 310 10 41 0 31 10 0 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 320 0 0 350 0 0 780 774 330 784 789 315 Stage 1 - - - - - - 412 412 - 357 357 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 368 362 - 427 432 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1240 - - 1209 - - 313 329 712 311 323 725 Stage 1 - - - - - - 617 594 - 661 628 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 652 625 - 606 582 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1240 - - 1209 - - 293 313 712 286 307 725 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 293 313 - 286 307 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 597 574 - 639 617 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 622 614 - 561 563 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0.5 15.4 13

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 293 712 1240 - - 1209 - - 480
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.141 0.043 0.033 - - 0.017 - - 0.064 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.3 10.3 8 - - 8 - - 13
HCM Lane LOS C B A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.2
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3022 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 20.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 130 200 131 530 620 230
Future Vol, veh/h 130 200 131 530 620 230
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - 225
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 141 217 142 576 674 250
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1534 674 924 0 - 0
Stage 1 674 - - - - -
Stage 2 860 - - - - -
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 ~ 128 455 739 - - -
Stage 1 506 - - - - -
Stage 2 414 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 103 455 739 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 235 - - - - -
Stage 1 409 - - - - -
Stage 2 414 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 108.8 2.2 0

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 739 - 332 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.193 - 1.08 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11 - 108.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 13.4 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3023 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 10 640 20 10 800
Future Vol, veh/h 50 10 640 20 10 800
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 50 100 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 54 11 688 22 11 860
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1570 688 0 0 710 0
Stage 1 688 - - - - -
Stage 2 882 - - - - -
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 122 446 - - 889 -
Stage 1 499 - - - - -
Stage 2 405 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 121 446 - - 889 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 257 - - - - -
Stage 1 499 - - - - -
Stage 2 400 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.9 0 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 277 889 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.233 0.012 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 21.9 9.1 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.9 0 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3024 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 30 40 20 20 81 20 570 10 61 590 80 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 30 40 20 20 81 20 570 10 61 590 80 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 31 41 21 21 84 21 588 10 63 608 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 201 69 65 94 60 168 231 877 15 453 799 80
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Sat Flow, veh/h 693 461 419 146 381 1053 747 1292 22 813 1136 153 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 0 0 126 0 0 21 0 598 63 0 690
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1573 0 0 1579 0 0 747 0 1314 813 0 1289 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 15.4 2.8 0.0 21.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 15.4 18.3 0.0 21.3 Prop In Lane 0.53 0.27 0.17 0.67 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 335 0 0 322 0 0 231 0 892 453 0 879 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.67 0.14 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 938 0 0 954 0 0 880 0 1847 1039 0 1812 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 5.8 11.5 0.0 8.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.5 0.0 13.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.7 0.0 0.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 7.0 11.7 0.0 37.9 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A C A A B A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 154 126 619 753
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.7 26.1 7.7 35.7
Approach LOS C C A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.4 13.8 37.4 13.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 * 5.2 * 4.7 * 5.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 72 * 29 * 72 * 29
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.5 6.2 23.3 5.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 0.8 9.4 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3025 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 2: Main St & Adams St Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 60 30 50 40 51 30 520 30 51 580 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 60 30 50 40 51 30 520 30 51 580 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.75 0.65 0.74 0.66 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 62 31 52 41 53 31 536 31 53 598 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 127 171 74 138 101 105 96 652 38 130 705 16
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 317 735 316 354 437 451 1767 1226 71 1767 1261 44 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 134 0 0 146 0 0 31 0 567 53 0 619
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1368 0 0 1242 0 0 1767 0 1297 1767 0 1306 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 31.9 2.3 0.0 35.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 31.9 2.3 0.0 35.5 Prop In Lane 0.31 0.23 0.36 0.36 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 371 0 0 344 0 0 96 0 689 130 0 721 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.82 0.41 0.00 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 466 0 0 431 0 0 354 0 975 354 0 981 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 40.8 0.0 17.3 39.6 0.0 19.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 4.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.4 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 9.4 1.1 0.0 21.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.2 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 41.5 0.0 20.0 40.4 0.0 62.7 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A D A B D A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 134 146 598 672
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 29.7 21.1 61.0
Approach LOS C C C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.2 45.2 25.5 10.9 43.4 25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 * 60 * 24 * 16 * 60 * 24 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 37.5 8.7 4.3 33.9 7.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 2.8 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3026 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
3: Main St & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 30 550 70 20 640
Future Vol, veh/h 40 30 550 70 20 640
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 39 71 0 169 169 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 85 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 42 31 573 73 21 667
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1527 850 0 0 815 0
Stage 1 779 - - - - -
Stage 2 748 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 129 359 - - 808 -
Stage 1 451 - - - - -
Stage 2 466 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 101 281 - - 678 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 230 - - - - -
Stage 1 378 - - - - -
Stage 2 435 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 25.3 0 0.3

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 249 678 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.293 0.031 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 25.3 10.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - - D B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 0.1 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3027 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 4 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 160 131 40 80 60 541 61 70 601 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 160 131 40 80 60 541 61 70 601 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 25 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 163 134 41 82 61 552 62 71 613 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 0 121 140 216 66 174 104 686 24 108 714 4
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1856 752 1368 419 1139 1767 1151 129 1767 1292 21 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 163 175 0 82 61 0 614 71 0 623 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1856 752 1787 0 1139 1767 0 1280 1767 0 1313 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 11.2 0.0 8.0 4.2 0.0 57.4 4.9 0.0 55.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 11.2 0.0 8.0 4.2 0.0 57.4 4.9 0.0 55.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 121 140 282 0 174 104 0 710 108 0 718 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.62 0.00 0.47 0.59 0.00 0.86 0.66 0.00 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 134 154 503 0 320 355 0 772 355 0 792 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 62.0 54.3 0.0 52.9 63.3 0.0 31.5 63.4 0.0 31.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 125.7 2.2 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 8.8 2.6 0.0 8.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 192.8 0.0 0.0 65.6 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 9.9 5.9 0.0 2.7 2.2 0.0 62.8 2.5 0.0 38.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 187.7 56.5 0.0 54.8 65.2 0.0 233.1 65.9 0.0 105.6 LnGrp LOS A A F E A D E A F E A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 163 257 675 694
Approach Delay, s/veh 187.7 56.0 217.9 101.5
Approach LOS F E F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 70.1 28.9 11.9 69.8 13.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 * 7.7 * 7.7 3.7 * 7.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 75 * 35 25.0 * 75 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 57.9 13.2 6.9 59.4 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.8 1.4 0.1 2.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 146.8
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3028 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 91 20 30 121 20
Future Vol, veh/h 30 91 20 30 121 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 2 0 6 6
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 33 99 22 33 132 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 134 0 168 91
Stage 1 - - - - 85 -
Stage 2 - - - - 83 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1444 - 820 964
Stage 1 - - - - 936 -
Stage 2 - - - - 938 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1441 - 800 957
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 800 -
Stage 1 - - - - 934 -
Stage 2 - - - - 917 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 3 10.4

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 819 - - 1441 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.187 - - 0.015 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3029 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th AWSC 2040 GP Buildout
6: Railroad Ave & Adams St Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 71 40 20 71 51 30 70 20 51 60 20
Future Vol, veh/h 10 71 40 20 71 51 30 70 20 51 60 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 80 45 22 80 57 34 79 22 57 67 22
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.8 8.9 9

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 25% 8% 14% 39%
Vol Thru, % 58% 59% 50% 46%
Vol Right, % 17% 33% 36% 15%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 120 121 142 131
LT Vol 30 10 20 51
Through Vol 70 71 71 60
RT Vol 20 40 51 20
Lane Flow Rate 135 136 160 147
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.179 0.175 0.204 0.196
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.772 4.641 4.608 4.792
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 748 770 775 746
Service Time 2.822 2.689 2.654 2.841
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.18 0.177 0.206 0.197
HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.7 8.8 9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3030 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 71 10 10 71 90 0 0 0 100 0 30
Future Vol, veh/h 40 71 10 10 71 90 0 0 0 100 0 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 27 0 18 18 0 27 4 0 7 7 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 41 73 10 10 73 93 0 0 0 103 0 31
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 193 0 0 101 0 0 338 391 103 334 350 152 Stage 1 - - - - - - 178 178 - 167 167 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 160 213 - 167 183 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1374 - - 1485 - - 614 543 949 618 573 892 Stage 1 - - - - - - 821 750 - 833 758 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 840 724 - 833 746 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1339 - - 1460 - - 562 499 927 580 527 865 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 562 499 - 580 527 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 781 714 - 786 732 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 800 699 - 801 710 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.6 0.4 0 12.3

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1339 - - 1460 - - 628
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.031 - - 0.007 - - 0.213
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 7.8 0 - 7.5 0 - 12.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.8
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3031 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
8: Library Ln & Adams St Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 8 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Future Vol, veh/h 40 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 4 4 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 49 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 16 0 0 19 0 0 154 133 20 130 133 19 Stage 1 - - - - - - 117 117 - 16 16 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 37 16 - 114 117 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1595 - - 1591 - - 811 756 1055 840 756 1056 Stage 1 - - - - - - 885 797 - 1001 880 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 976 880 - 888 797 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1593 - - 1585 - - 759 729 1050 818 729 1052 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 759 729 - 818 729 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 854 769 - 969 879 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 939 879 - 860 769 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 5.6 0 0 8.5

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1593 - - 1585 - - 1052
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.031 - - - - - 0.035
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 7.3 0 - 0 - - 8.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3032 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th AWSC 2040 GP Buildout
9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 9 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 10 60 10 10 0 60 16 20 0 16 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 10 60 10 10 0 60 16 20 0 16 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 12 70 12 12 0 70 17 23 0 17 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.6 7.8 7.2

HCM LOS A A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 62% 12% 50% 0%
Vol Thru, % 17% 12% 50% 62%
Vol Right, % 21% 75% 0% 38%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 96 80 20 26
LT Vol 60 10 10 0
Through Vol 16 10 10 16
RT Vol 20 60 0 10
Lane Flow Rate 110 92 23 28
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.128 0.097 0.028 0.031
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.174 3.783 4.364 4.007
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 855 935 810 883
Service Time 2.222 1.859 2.448 2.077
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.098 0.028 0.032
HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.3 7.6 7.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3033 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
10: Pope Street & Starr Ave Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 220 240 51 61 11
Future Vol, veh/h 31 220 240 51 61 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 32 224 245 52 62 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 297 0 - 0 559 271
Stage 1 - - - - 271 -
Stage 2 - - - - 288 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1259 - - - 488 765
Stage 1 - - - - 772 -
Stage 2 - - - - 759 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1259 - - - 474 765
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 474 -
Stage 1 - - - - 750 -
Stage 2 - - - - 759 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 13.4

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1259 - - - 503
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - - 0.146
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - - 13.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.5
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3034 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 241 20 20 291 10 20 0 30 20 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 20 241 20 20 291 10 20 0 30 20 0 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 85 - - 90 - - 110 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 21 256 21 21 310 11 21 0 32 21 0 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 323 0 0 277 0 0 677 674 267 685 679 318 Stage 1 - - - - - - 309 309 - 360 360 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 368 365 - 325 319 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1231 - - 1280 - - 365 375 769 361 372 720 Stage 1 - - - - - - 699 658 - 656 625 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 650 622 - 685 651 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1229 - - 1280 - - 345 362 769 336 359 719 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 345 362 - 336 359 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 687 647 - 644 614 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 620 611 - 645 640 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0.5 12.4 13.7

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 345 769 1229 - - 1280 - - 458
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.062 0.042 0.017 - - 0.017 - - 0.093 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.1 9.9 8 - - 7.9 - - 13.7
HCM Lane LOS C A A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.3
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3035 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 14.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 140 151 161 620 560 160
Future Vol, veh/h 140 151 161 620 560 160
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - 225
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 147 159 169 653 589 168
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1580 589 757 0 - 0
Stage 1 589 - - - - -
Stage 2 991 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 119 506 849 - - -
Stage 1 553 - - - - -
Stage 2 358 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 95 506 849 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 223 - - - - -
Stage 1 443 - - - - -
Stage 2 358 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 82.1 2.1 0

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 849 - 314 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.2 - 0.976 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - 82.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 10.2 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3036 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report

Page 13 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 20 730 30 10 680
Future Vol, veh/h 40 20 730 30 10 680
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 1 0 1 1 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 50 100 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 42 21 760 31 10 708
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1489 762 0 0 792 0
Stage 1 761 - - - - -
Stage 2 728 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 136 403 - - 824 -
Stage 1 459 - - - - -
Stage 2 476 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 134 402 - - 823 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 273 - - - - -
Stage 1 459 - - - - -
Stage 2 470 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19.8 0 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 306 823 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.204 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 19.8 9.4 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0 -
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3037 of 4422 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Plus Project - MITIGATION 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 Existing Plus Project - MITIGATION Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 191 147 26 91 83 561 65 85 520 4 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 191 147 26 91 83 561 65 85 520 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1329 1329 1870 1329 1329 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 203 156 28 97 88 597 69 90 553 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 103 173 185 33 276 107 784 30 109 815 6
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.54 0.54 0.07 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1453 1521 273 1479 1781 1163 134 1781 1317 10 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 203 184 0 97 88 0 666 90 0 557 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1453 1794 0 1479 1781 0 1297 1781 0 1327 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 12.4 0.0 7.0 6.0 0.0 61.1 6.2 0.0 41.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 12.4 0.0 7.0 6.0 0.0 61.1 6.2 0.0 41.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 103 173 218 0 276 107 0 814 109 0 821 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.84 0.00 0.35 0.82 0.00 0.82 0.83 0.00 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 135 214 350 0 398 261 0 1055 176 0 983 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 72.9 70.6 0.0 58.7 76.3 0.0 31.4 76.2 0.0 20.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 120.0 5.4 0.0 0.3 5.7 0.0 3.1 7.3 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 139.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 13.1 8.0 0.0 3.6 3.9 0.0 63.7 4.0 0.0 14.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 192.9 76.0 0.0 59.0 82.0 0.0 174.0 83.5 0.0 21.5 LnGrp LOS A A F E A E F A F F A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 203 281 754 647
Approach Delay, s/veh 192.9 70.1 163.2 30.1
Approach LOS F E F C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 74.5 24.2 12.3 74.5 13.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 * 7.7 * 7.7 3.7 * 7.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.3 * 92 * 24 12.3 * 1E2 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 43.9 14.4 8.2 63.1 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.8 0.7 0.0 3.6 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 106.9
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3038 of 4422 ends

Page 3039 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3040 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3041 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3042 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3043 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3044 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 188 152 111 436 119 345
Average Queue (ft) 99 65 29 168 53 132
95th Queue (ft) 167 121 86 354 106 273
Link Distance (ft) 432 351 998 789
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 12 2 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 4 12 9
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 168 150 174 421 149 412
Average Queue (ft) 87 65 57 217 46 184
95th Queue (ft) 150 122 145 386 125 341
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 0 6
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 91 86 47 41
Average Queue (ft) 33 4 12 2
95th Queue (ft) 72 30 39 17
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3045 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 250 350 145 165 745 150 478
Average Queue (ft) 123 162 96 91 359 58 187
95th Queue (ft) 211 307 173 181 663 150 393
Link Distance (ft) 428 910 2047 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 14 3 1 29 0 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 6 8 23 1 13
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 64
Average Queue (ft) 2 33
95th Queue (ft) 13 55
Link Distance (ft) 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 79 84 76
Average Queue (ft) 49 36 45 40
95th Queue (ft) 77 59 71 66
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3046 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 36 27 71
Average Queue (ft) 13 2 14 31
95th Queue (ft) 41 14 35 55
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 35 31
Average Queue (ft) 1 9 9
95th Queue (ft) 12 33 31
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 70 65 68
Average Queue (ft) 34 22 35
95th Queue (ft) 59 51 57
Link Distance (ft) 2129 367 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3047 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 10 96
Average Queue (ft) 5 0 40
95th Queue (ft) 28 5 71
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1095 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 16 65 96 74 48
Average Queue (ft) 4 1 17 37 20 16
95th Queue (ft) 20 9 47 69 47 40
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 259 103 91 10 39
Average Queue (ft) 90 46 3 0 7
95th Queue (ft) 191 84 48 5 26
Link Distance (ft) 872 420 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3048 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 38 17
Average Queue (ft) 20 1 1
95th Queue (ft) 47 17 7
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 118
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3049 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 249 221 126 374 119 293
Average Queue (ft) 98 88 22 159 40 123
95th Queue (ft) 184 161 81 314 88 227
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 1089
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 11 0 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 3 6
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 172 243 174 422 149 410
Average Queue (ft) 115 108 44 226 70 179
95th Queue (ft) 181 194 136 386 150 335
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 18 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0 9
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 85 110 55 142
Average Queue (ft) 34 19 15 19
95th Queue (ft) 69 70 44 78
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3050 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 291 245 143 164 558 150 470
Average Queue (ft) 142 110 62 81 277 64 229
95th Queue (ft) 244 197 137 167 482 162 409
Link Distance (ft) 428 909 988 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 9 0 1 23 0 23
Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 1 7 19 0 19
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 18 68
Average Queue (ft) 1 39
95th Queue (ft) 11 60
Link Distance (ft) 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 109 112 91 86
Average Queue (ft) 60 61 41 44
95th Queue (ft) 95 95 74 72
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3051 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 54 27 89
Average Queue (ft) 6 3 11 38
95th Queue (ft) 27 28 33 68
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34 10 58 56
Average Queue (ft) 6 1 21 27
95th Queue (ft) 26 10 48 51
Link Distance (ft) 334 195 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 62 35 66
Average Queue (ft) 36 12 32
95th Queue (ft) 57 37 54
Link Distance (ft) 2129 367 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3052 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 83
Average Queue (ft) 7 37
95th Queue (ft) 33 63
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 28 50 35 36
Average Queue (ft) 9 3 17 11 15
95th Queue (ft) 29 17 41 29 37
Link Distance (ft) 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 287 81 10 35
Average Queue (ft) 137 36 0 4
95th Queue (ft) 255 66 7 19
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3053 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 30
Average Queue (ft) 32 2
95th Queue (ft) 61 13
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 81
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3054 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 187 111 78 310 119 261
Average Queue (ft) 73 49 16 112 34 111
95th Queue (ft) 134 92 59 247 84 208
Link Distance (ft) 432 351 998 1089
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 4
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 148 171 174 414 149 418
Average Queue (ft) 68 69 41 192 46 202
95th Queue (ft) 126 140 126 337 113 364
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 13 0 16
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 7
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 125 233 97 236
Average Queue (ft) 50 63 19 58
95th Queue (ft) 98 157 56 157
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3055 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 199 250 145 165 518 150 464
Average Queue (ft) 112 118 55 45 228 49 241
95th Queue (ft) 188 216 124 133 442 145 428
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 9 0 0 18 0 22
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0 0 10 1 14
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 6 24 65
Average Queue (ft) 0 2 35
95th Queue (ft) 6 13 55
Link Distance (ft) 351 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 95 69 69
Average Queue (ft) 41 41 32 36
95th Queue (ft) 65 70 56 60
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3056 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 11 27 64
Average Queue (ft) 5 1 3 27
95th Queue (ft) 24 8 18 50
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 11 30 49
Average Queue (ft) 1 3 20
95th Queue (ft) 7 18 46
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 32 60
Average Queue (ft) 27 12 28
95th Queue (ft) 52 37 50
Link Distance (ft) 2129 367 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3057 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 62 66
Average Queue (ft) 6 28
95th Queue (ft) 35 59
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 26 28 31 39 53
Average Queue (ft) 4 1 4 9 10 14
95th Queue (ft) 20 14 20 29 27 39
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 300 84 26 13 25
Average Queue (ft) 124 36 1 0 3
95th Queue (ft) 262 66 19 6 16
Link Distance (ft) 872 420 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3058 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR T R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 18 24 29 6
Average Queue (ft) 28 1 1 3 0
95th Queue (ft) 59 10 15 18 0
Link Distance (ft) 355 161 2786
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 52
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3059 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 210 168 129 390 119 382
Average Queue (ft) 94 71 33 147 56 132
95th Queue (ft) 171 138 99 309 110 271
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 529
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 10 4 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 26 9
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 168 152 174 444 149 382
Average Queue (ft) 97 66 63 226 53 181
95th Queue (ft) 161 125 154 382 130 334
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 17 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 8 0 6
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 128 82 63 31
Average Queue (ft) 42 6 13 1
95th Queue (ft) 86 44 44 19
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3060 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 211 395 145 165 876 149 399
Average Queue (ft) 122 169 99 74 393 54 197
95th Queue (ft) 199 311 177 176 775 148 368
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 18 2 0 29 0 18
Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 5 2 22 1 14
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 11 23 66
Average Queue (ft) 0 1 33
95th Queue (ft) 8 12 54
Link Distance (ft) 350 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 107 84 80 80
Average Queue (ft) 54 38 44 40
95th Queue (ft) 86 66 69 65
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3061 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 57 31 89
Average Queue (ft) 14 4 12 34
95th Queue (ft) 42 24 34 67
Link Distance (ft) 192 2127 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 30 35
Average Queue (ft) 1 7 8
95th Queue (ft) 12 28 31
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 58 59 63 60
Average Queue (ft) 29 24 34 21
95th Queue (ft) 51 53 52 50
Link Distance (ft) 2127 358 1269 206
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3062 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 57 17 100
Average Queue (ft) 6 1 45
95th Queue (ft) 33 9 79
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1095 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 16 65 97 46 43
Average Queue (ft) 3 1 21 37 18 19
95th Queue (ft) 17 7 50 69 35 41
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 211 91 9 48
Average Queue (ft) 87 43 0 7
95th Queue (ft) 177 75 4 28
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3063 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 70 12 23
Average Queue (ft) 22 0 1
95th Queue (ft) 52 9 11
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 122
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3064 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 212 193 127 392 120 325
Average Queue (ft) 100 84 24 179 37 137
95th Queue (ft) 189 153 85 348 85 251
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 529
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 13 1 11
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 4 7
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 178 234 174 472 149 442
Average Queue (ft) 120 113 38 228 63 188
95th Queue (ft) 186 196 115 395 132 358
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 17 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 0 10
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 105 117 52 56
Average Queue (ft) 39 17 15 8
95th Queue (ft) 77 71 43 36
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3065 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 212 272 144 165 466 150 418
Average Queue (ft) 124 111 64 66 214 61 182
95th Queue (ft) 208 205 141 162 412 155 353
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 9 0 0 16 0 16
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 1 3 14 0 14
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 4 12 78
Average Queue (ft) 0 0 42
95th Queue (ft) 3 6 66
Link Distance (ft) 350 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 135 125 78 92
Average Queue (ft) 64 64 40 43
95th Queue (ft) 108 105 66 72
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3066 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34 21 32 69
Average Queue (ft) 5 1 14 35
95th Queue (ft) 24 10 36 60
Link Distance (ft) 192 2126 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 57 58
Average Queue (ft) 7 24 28
95th Queue (ft) 28 52 50
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 40 66 34
Average Queue (ft) 32 16 32 14
95th Queue (ft) 50 42 53 37
Link Distance (ft) 2126 358 1269 229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3067 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 9 88
Average Queue (ft) 12 0 41
95th Queue (ft) 46 5 68
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1095 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 35 4 28 59 38 31
Average Queue (ft) 6 0 5 18 11 15
95th Queue (ft) 26 3 22 43 29 37
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 520 80 32
Average Queue (ft) 176 36 4
95th Queue (ft) 405 68 21
Link Distance (ft) 872
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3068 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 94 4 29
Average Queue (ft) 32 0 1
95th Queue (ft) 66 3 12
Link Distance (ft) 355 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 69
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3069 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 114 113 306 113 275
Average Queue (ft) 66 47 18 104 31 109
95th Queue (ft) 122 89 66 224 74 212
Link Distance (ft) 432 351 998 530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 4
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 170 174 351 149 419
Average Queue (ft) 66 74 39 195 59 205
95th Queue (ft) 118 139 123 326 140 348
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 14 0 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 8
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 106 186 81 252
Average Queue (ft) 49 58 18 64
95th Queue (ft) 93 143 53 162
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3070 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 207 244 145 165 418 150 475
Average Queue (ft) 112 102 56 46 196 52 227
95th Queue (ft) 193 193 128 135 368 148 417
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 0 0 16 0 22
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 1 1 9 0 14
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 11 17 63
Average Queue (ft) 0 0 34
95th Queue (ft) 8 6 54
Link Distance (ft) 351 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 76 65 79
Average Queue (ft) 44 41 34 37
95th Queue (ft) 69 66 57 61
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3071 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 21 27 63
Average Queue (ft) 6 1 4 28
95th Queue (ft) 29 9 19 50
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 30 64
Average Queue (ft) 1 3 24
95th Queue (ft) 9 19 50
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 30 68 35
Average Queue (ft) 24 10 30 14
95th Queue (ft) 47 33 54 38
Link Distance (ft) 2129 356 1269 198
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3072 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 61 68
Average Queue (ft) 8 29
95th Queue (ft) 36 55
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 11 39 28 40 40
Average Queue (ft) 3 0 4 7 12 17
95th Queue (ft) 15 8 24 25 32 39
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 269 89 4 27
Average Queue (ft) 123 35 0 3
95th Queue (ft) 227 68 3 15
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3073 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 66 10 35 15
Average Queue (ft) 25 0 4 1
95th Queue (ft) 56 7 22 11
Link Distance (ft) 355 2786
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 48
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3074 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 216 168 129 359 120 562
Average Queue (ft) 123 83 38 178 78 303
95th Queue (ft) 204 147 102 334 138 590
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 529
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 14 6 21
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 6 47 25
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 175 185 175 445 149 438
Average Queue (ft) 106 84 58 237 68 230
95th Queue (ft) 168 150 154 387 146 400
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 18 0 20
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 9 2 14
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 33 54 42
Average Queue (ft) 40 2 13 1
95th Queue (ft) 84 14 42 11
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3075 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 221 426 145 165 1092 150 545
Average Queue (ft) 147 230 104 86 694 86 261
95th Queue (ft) 234 385 184 191 1585 183 474
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 31 3 1 36 3 24
Queuing Penalty (veh) 46 8 9 29 13 24
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 10 29 69
Average Queue (ft) 1 2 36
95th Queue (ft) 8 15 58
Link Distance (ft) 350 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 124 77 101 88
Average Queue (ft) 61 38 49 45
95th Queue (ft) 106 61 80 73
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3076 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 35 45 84
Average Queue (ft) 16 3 17 33
95th Queue (ft) 47 15 41 60
Link Distance (ft) 192 2128 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 27 30 31
Average Queue (ft) 1 9 8
95th Queue (ft) 10 31 29
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 71 61 81 58
Average Queue (ft) 35 27 39 23
95th Queue (ft) 59 54 64 49
Link Distance (ft) 2128 357 1269 268
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3077 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 112
Average Queue (ft) 6 49
95th Queue (ft) 36 86
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 58 160 68 106 103 67
Average Queue (ft) 6 20 23 45 24 25
95th Queue (ft) 36 139 53 86 76 54
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 2
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 841 109 15 34
Average Queue (ft) 546 56 1 7
95th Queue (ft) 926 95 9 26
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 15
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3078 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 67 10 30
Average Queue (ft) 26 0 4
95th Queue (ft) 56 7 20
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 258
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3079 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 223 233 129 440 119 387
Average Queue (ft) 120 115 28 193 53 161
95th Queue (ft) 200 197 83 369 107 294
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 529
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 16 3 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 18 12
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 175 243 174 461 150 437
Average Queue (ft) 121 116 50 237 84 207
95th Queue (ft) 189 217 138 408 166 376
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 15 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 18 1 18
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 7 14
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 144 161 56 97
Average Queue (ft) 64 31 15 17
95th Queue (ft) 125 107 45 64
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3080 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 210 264 145 165 534 150 478
Average Queue (ft) 153 123 78 84 257 79 222
95th Queue (ft) 233 225 153 189 466 174 422
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 11 1 1 21 1 20
Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 2 4 21 8 23
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 4 24 85
Average Queue (ft) 0 2 43
95th Queue (ft) 3 13 71
Link Distance (ft) 350 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 146 130 95 93
Average Queue (ft) 69 61 41 48
95th Queue (ft) 115 106 73 79
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3081 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 40 45 73
Average Queue (ft) 7 4 18 37
95th Queue (ft) 29 24 42 64
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 4 52 57
Average Queue (ft) 5 0 28 29
95th Queue (ft) 23 3 49 50
Link Distance (ft) 334 195 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 35 67 56
Average Queue (ft) 40 20 39 17
95th Queue (ft) 63 44 62 45
Link Distance (ft) 2129 356 1269 257
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3082 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 384 13 310
Average Queue (ft) 93 1 100
95th Queue (ft) 418 8 314
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1095 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 711 31 86 310 101
Average Queue (ft) 25 382 6 22 96 33
95th Queue (ft) 94 1139 24 68 348 105
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 41 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 45 0 21
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 18 0 8
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 816 93 35
Average Queue (ft) 712 41 6
95th Queue (ft) 1104 72 24
Link Distance (ft) 872
Upstream Blk Time (%) 35
Queuing Penalty (veh) 118
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3083 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 84 31
Average Queue (ft) 38 4
95th Queue (ft) 72 20
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 321
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3084 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 194 120 114 368 114 365
Average Queue (ft) 82 57 19 124 37 129
95th Queue (ft) 154 106 68 277 87 257
Link Distance (ft) 432 351 998 530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 8 0 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 3 5
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 158 169 174 392 150 412
Average Queue (ft) 76 80 41 202 56 210
95th Queue (ft) 139 145 127 340 129 375
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 0 19
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 0 10
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 186 294 85 200
Average Queue (ft) 70 89 16 70
95th Queue (ft) 154 207 56 165
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3085 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 205 293 145 165 526 150 491
Average Queue (ft) 117 127 64 54 259 54 269
95th Queue (ft) 188 228 144 156 468 152 446
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 12 0 22 0 27
Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 0 13 1 19
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 4 56 71
Average Queue (ft) 0 6 37
95th Queue (ft) 3 30 60
Link Distance (ft) 351 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 74 64 74
Average Queue (ft) 41 42 33 39
95th Queue (ft) 66 67 56 62
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3086 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 85 80
Average Queue (ft) 10 8 32
95th Queue (ft) 39 60 66
Link Distance (ft) 192 2128 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 5 44
Average Queue (ft) 0 20
95th Queue (ft) 4 46
Link Distance (ft) 334 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 40 65 52
Average Queue (ft) 32 14 35 18
95th Queue (ft) 58 39 56 45
Link Distance (ft) 2128 357 1269 202
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3087 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 120 102
Average Queue (ft) 16 36
95th Queue (ft) 73 81
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 93 787 31 98 302 158
Average Queue (ft) 21 267 4 13 92 50
95th Queue (ft) 90 821 20 59 310 151
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 44 0 22
Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 0 4
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 823 105 16 46
Average Queue (ft) 667 48 1 6
95th Queue (ft) 1165 87 9 25
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%) 39
Queuing Penalty (veh) 112
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3088 of 4422 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR T L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 86 4 34 11
Average Queue (ft) 38 0 6 0
95th Queue (ft) 73 3 26 8
Link Distance (ft) 355 161 2786
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 203
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3089 of 4422 ends

APPENDIX D
SWITRS Data
Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3090 of 4422 ends

Page 3091 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3092 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3093 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3094 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3095 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3096 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3097 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3098 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3099 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3100 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3101 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3102 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3103 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3104 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3105 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3106 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3107 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3108 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3109 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3110 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3111 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3112 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3113 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3114 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3115 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3116 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3117 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3118 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3119 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3120 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3121 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3122 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3123 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3124 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3125 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3126 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3127 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3128 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3129 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3130 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3131 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3132 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3133 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3134 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3135 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3136 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3137 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3138 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3139 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3140 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3141 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3142 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3143 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3144 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3145 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3146 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3147 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3148 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3149 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3150 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3151 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3152 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3153 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3154 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3155 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3156 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3157 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3158 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3159 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3160 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3161 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3162 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3163 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3164 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3165 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3166 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3167 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3168 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3169 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3170 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3171 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3172 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3173 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3174 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3175 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3176 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3177 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3178 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3179 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3180 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3181 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3182 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3183 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3184 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3185 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.7.

Page 3186 of 4422 ends

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
for the
HunterSubdivision Project
SCH no. 2018032014
Prepared for
City of St. Helena
Planning& Community Improvement Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
Contact: Maya DeRosa,
Planning& Building Director
[email protected]
Prepared by
JANUARY 2023
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3187 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3188 of 4422 ends

Final Environmental Impact Report
for the
Hunter Subdivision Project
SCH No. 2018032014
Prepared for:

City of St. Helena
Planning and Community Improvement Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
Contact: Maya DeRosa
Planning and Building Director
[email protected]
Prepared by:
1102 R Street
Sacramento, California 95811
JANUARY 2023
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3189 of 4422 ends

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3190 of 4422 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 TOC-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1 2 LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING ........................................................2-1 3 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR..................................................................................3-1 4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.................................................................................4-1

FIGURES

3.12-1 NAPA RIVER LOOP ......................................................................................... 3-7

APPENDICES

A HUNTER SUBDIVISION HYDRAULIC MODELING ANALYSIS
B ATTACHMENTS TO LETTERS 45, 46, 65 AND 84
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3191 of 4422 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project 10839
January 2023 TOC-ii

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3192 of 4422 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) contains the agency and public comments received during the public review comment period for the Hunter Subdivision Project Draft EIR (Proposed Project).

The EIR is an informational document intended to disclose to the City of St. Helena (City), public agencies and the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Proposed Project or one of the alternatives to the Project described in the Draft EIR. All written comments received during the public review period (September 23, 2021 through November 30, 20211) on the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR, as are oral comments received at the November 2 and November 30, 2021, Planning Commission hearings on the Draft EIR.

The responses in the Final EIR clarify, correct, and/or amplify text in the Draft EIR, as appropriate. Also included are text changes made at the initiative of the Lead Agency (City of St.

Helena). These changes (summarized in Chapter 2) do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code (PRC), Sections 21000–21177).

1.1 BACKGROUND
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on March 6, 2018 through April 9, 2018, for the required 30-day review period. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a period of 67 days1from September 23, 2021 through November 30, 2021. Public hearings before the City’s Planning Commission to receive oral comments on the Draft EIR were held on November 2, 2021 and November 30, 2021.

The comments and responses that make up the Final EIR, in combination with the Draft EIR, as amended by the text changes, constitute the EIR that will be considered for certification by the decision makers of the City of St. Helena.
1 In response to requests from the public to extend the comment period, the City extended the comment period an additional 22 days closing on November 30, 2021. The City also held another hearing to take oral comments at the November 30, 2021 Planning Commission hearing.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3193 of 4422 ends

1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-2

1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must prepare and certify a Final EIR prior to approving a proposed project. The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that the Final EIR shall consist of:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft.
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The Lead Agency must provide each agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agency’s response to comments a minimum of 10-days before certifying the Final EIR.

1.3 USE OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR allows commenting agencies and the public and the City an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR and the Responses to Comments received. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the Proposed Project, either in whole or in part, or one of the alternatives to the Project discussed in the Draft EIR.

As required by Section 15090 (a) (1)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations:

1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project.

3. The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The possible findings set forth in CEQA section 15091 are:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3194 of 4422 ends

1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-3

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons supporting the action. The Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the Lead Agency’s administrative record.

The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in a separate document that will be considered for adoption by the City’s decision makers at the time of Project review.

1.4 PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
The Proposed Project is located on a 16.9-acre site in the northeastern portion of the city, at the eastern terminus of Adams Street, three blocks east of downtown and State Route 29, and west of the Napa River. The Proposed Project consists of the following:
• A Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the site into 51 lots (sized for single-family residences), a 3.4-acre parcel, and two lettered lots: a 0.06-acre parcel (Parcel “A”) for an onsite irrigation well and a 0.04-acre parcel (Parcel “B”), as shown in Figure 2-4, Proposed Tentative Map of the Draft EIR. The Project applicant has stated their intent to ultimately develop the 51 lots with 51 single-family, market-rate residences. Additionally, homes on 11 of the 51 lots would be developed with an ADU as part of their initial construction. The applicant intends to ultimately develop the 3.4-acre parcel with 25 attached multifamily residential units.
• An Affordable Housing Agreement, which would require approval by the City Council subsequent to approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. • Design Review of the proposed single-family and multi-family units. • A Conditional Use Permit for the development of multi-family housing. Development of the Proposed Project includes the extension of Adams Street and Starr Avenue to and through the project site and the installation of infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) to serve the proposed homes.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3195 of 4422 ends

1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-4
A detailed project description is contained in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description. The environmental impact analysis is included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR.

1.5 SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES
Chapter 3 in this Final EIR, Changes to the Draft EIR, identifies all changes made to the document by section. These text changes provide additional clarity in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, but do not change the significance of the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

1.6 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
A list of public agencies and individuals commenting on the Draft EIR is included in Chapter 2 in this Final EIR. A total of 122 written comment letters were received along with oral comments received at the public hearings held before the Planning Commission on November 2, 2021 and November 30, 2021. Responses to comments are provided in Chapter 4 of this Final EIR. Each comment letter and each oral comment on the Draft EIR, provided at the public hearings before the Planning Commission, is numbered and presented with brackets indicating how the letter or oral comment has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a binomial with the number of the comment letter appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, comments in Letter 1 are numbered 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and so on. Immediately following the letter or Planning Commission comments are responses, each numbered to correspond to the bracketed comments.

Comments received at the Planning Commission hearings are numbered as PC-1, PC-2, etc. As the subject matter of one topic may overlap between letters, the reader must occasionally refer to one or more responses to review all the information on a given subject. To assist the reader, crossreferences to other comments and also Master Responses are provided. A number of comments received raised the same or similar comments; therefore, Master Responses based on specific issues of concern are provided in Chapter 4.

1.7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Proposed Project includes all of the mitigation measures required of the Project identified in the Draft EIR, as revised in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. The MMRP is provided as a separate document.

If the City Council chooses to approve the Proposed Project or one of the alternatives described in the Draft EIR, the City Council will be required to adopt the MMRP at the same time it adopts its CEQA Findings, as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3196 of 4422 ends

1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-5

1.8 OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW PROCESS The City notified all responsible and trustee agencies and all known interested groups, organizations, and individuals that the Draft EIR was available for review. The following list of actions took place during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft EIR:
• The City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) along with copies of the NOP stating the City’s intention to prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project with the State Clearinghouse for the required 30-day public review period on March 6, 2018. • A NOC and copies of the Draft EIR were filed with the State Clearinghouse on September 23, 2021 to start the required 45-day public review period (which was extended to 67 days). The City distributed a Notice of Availability (NOA) to interested groups, organizations, and individuals regarding the availability of the Draft EIR. A public notice was placed in the Napa Valley Register newspaper. A public hearing to take comments on the Draft EIR was held on November 2, 2021 and November 30, 2021. • Copies of the Draft EIR were available for review on the City’s website (https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/hunter-draft-eir); at the St. Helena library, and at the City’s offices located at 1572 Railroad Avenue, St. Helena, CA 94574.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3197 of 4422 ends

1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-6

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3198 of 4422 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-1
CHAPTER 2

LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING

FEDERAL
There were no comments received from any federal agencies by the close of the comment review period (November 30, 2021).

STATE
There were no comments received from any state agencies by the close of the comment review period (November 30, 2021).

LOCAL
There were no comments received from any local agencies by the close of the comment review period (November 30, 2021).

ORGANIZATIONS
There were two comments received from local organizations; Napa Bicycle Coalition and Our Town St. Helena.

INDIVIDUALS
More than 120 comment letters were received from individuals and organizations.

Comments received from organizations and the public are listed in Table 2-1. Comments received from individuals are listed in alphabetical order. In some instances the same commenter submitted more than one letter. To differentiate between the letters, the date the letter was received is provided; however, there are numerous instances where letters from the same commenter are issued on the same day. The number of each letter reflects the order in which responses are provided in Chapter 4.

Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
Organizations
1 Napa County Bicycle Coalition
2 Our Town St. Helena
Individuals
3 Ron Amoroso (10/26/21)
4 Ron Amoroso (11/2/21)
5 Bette Antor
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3199 of 4422 ends

2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-2
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
6 Craig and Debra Austin
7 Katie and Jacob Avery
8 Trevor Barlow
9 Thomas and Margot Belt
10 Pierre Birebent
11 Earl and Trudy Bouligny
12 Karen and Kevin Bradley
13 Greg Brown
14 Ethan Brown
15 Andree Bryan
16 Bernerd Buckley (10/26/21)
17 Bernerd Buckley (10/26/21)
18 Bernerd Buckley (10/26/21)
19 Bernerd Buckley (11/2/21)
20 Bernerd Buckley (11/2/21)
21 Bernerd Buckley (11/29/21)
22 Jeff Burton
23 Lynda M. Burton
24 Calie Candia
25 Bert Casten
26 Deanna L. Caudill
27 Bob Childs and Nancy Carlson
28 Robb A. Cohen
29 Joseph Cole
30 Arlene and Richard Corsetti
31 Carroll and Ellen Cotten
32 Richard Crebs
33 Nicole and Scott Dale
34 Gayle Davies
35 Priscilla Dell
36 Nancy Dervin
37 Julie Dickson
38 Chris Echols
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3200 of 4422 ends

2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-3
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
39 Cindy and John Ford
40 Chris Fowler
41 Pat Friday (11/8/21)
42 Pat Friday (11/8/21)
43 Alan Galbraith
44 Dottie Gingerelli
45 Diane Green, Daniel Wheaton, Mark Arnett, Carl Barnes, Gary Oncina, James Pelligri (no date)
46 Diane Green, Daniel Wheaton, Mark Arnett, Carl Barnes, Gary Oncina, James Pelligri (11/2/21)
47 Diane Green, Daniel Wheaton, Mark Arnett, Carl Barnes, Gary Oncina, James Pelligri (11/2/21)
48 Elizabeth Green (11/3/21)
49 Elizabeth Green (11/5/21)
50 Rodney and Elizabeth Green (11/1/21)
51 Rodney and Elizabeth Green (11/3/21)
52 Gale Greisen
53 Henry Gundling (10/12/21)
54 Henry Gundling (10/12/21)
55 Kathleen Guneratne
56 Mariam Hansen
57 Donna Hardy
58 Carla Holm
59 Suzanne James
60 Frank and Tracy Jonelis
61 Sherri Kelly (10/27/21)
62 Sherri Kelly (11/3/21)
63 Patrick Kenealy
64 Susan Kenward
65 Grace D. Kistner (11/23/21)
66 Grace D. Kistner (11/29/21)
67 Pamela Koussa
68 Laurel Krsek
69 Gail Morgan Lane
70 Marina Lavagnino and Jenna Lavagnino
71 Lou Lavigne and Nancy Rothman
72 Sandra Lowry
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3201 of 4422 ends

2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-4
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
73 Isobel Luria (11/2/21)
74 Isobel Luria (11/3/21)
75 Isobel Luria (11/8/21)
76 Isobel Luria (11/30/21)
77 Norm Manzer
78 Beth and David Marks
79 Tracy McBride
80 Sandra McCorkle
81 Kathleen McCreedy
82 Joe McGrath
83 John Milliken (11/2/21)
84 John Milliken (11/30/21)
85 Michael Mills
86 Doris Mosler
87 Janell Myhre
88 Timothy Nieman
89 Indrajit Obeysekere
90 Gabriel and Tishna Pastrama
91 Joann Patton
92 Kathleen Paulus
93 Leslie R. Perry (11/1/21), Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz 94 Leslie R. Perry (11/8/21), Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz 95 Vivian Pirchner
96 Charles Pniower
97 Patrick and Laura Pohlen
98 Charlotte Powell
99 Lisa Redmon
100 Greg Reynolds
101 Ringenberg (via email, unsigned letter)
102 Jim Ritchie
103 Vivian L. Robison
104 Linda Rose
105 A. Venezia Rouas
106 Laurence Schlatter
107 John Schoof
108 Cathy Small
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3202 of 4422 ends

2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-5
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
109 Patricia Stephens
110 Carolyn Troyan
111 Vineyard Valley Managing Partners (signed by residents) 112 Vineyard Valley Residents
113 Maria Villegas (10/29/21)
114 Maria Villegas (11/29/21)
115 Maria Villegas (no date)
116 Lori Vrabel
117 Ree Whitford
118 Mark and Jeanette Willey
119 Connie Wilson
120 Terry Wood
121 Angela M. Zivkovic, PhD
Comment Letter Received after the Close of the Comment Period 122 Daniel Hale
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 2, 2021 AND NOVEMBER 30, 2021 The transcript and responses to the November 2, 2021 and November 30, 2021 Planning Commission hearings are provided immediately following the comment letters and responses.

There were a total of 12 speakers at the November 2, 2021 hearing and 6 speakers at the November 30, 2021 hearing. Table 2-2 lists all the commenters.

Table 2-2. List of Commenters – Planning Commission Hearings Planning Commission Commenters – November 2, 2021
Angela Zivkovic
Greg Reynolds, Managing Partner Vineyard Valley
Maria Villegas
Patrick Band, Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Tracy McBride
Elizabeth Alderman
Nancy Dervin
Marina Lavagnino
Ben Alderman
Randy Hussong
Michael Mills
Maureen Levandowsky
Planning Commission Commenters – November 30, 2021
Tracy McBride
Marina Lavagnino
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3203 of 4422 ends

2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-6
Anya Courtney
Greg Reynolds, Managing Partner Vineyard Valley
Jenna Lavagnino
Angela Zivkovic
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3204 of 4422 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-1
CHAPTER 3

CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR

INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents minor corrections, additions, and revisions made to the Draft EIR initiated by the Lead Agency (City of St. Helena), reviewing agencies, the public, and/or consultants based on their review. New text is indicated in underline and text to be deleted is reflected by strike through, unless otherwise noted in the introduction preceding the text change. Text changes are presented in the section and page order in which they appear in the Draft EIR.

It should be noted that the changes represent minor clarifications/amplifications of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR and do not constitute significant new information that, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, would trigger the need to recirculate portions or all of the Draft EIR.

Executive Summary
The last sentence on page ES-17 is revised to read:

Of the alternatives evaluated above, Alternative 2 3, the Park/Open Space Preserve alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

Chapter 1, Introduction
The text on page 1-6 is revised to read:

Alternative 3: Park/Open Space Preserve Alternative. This alternative includes a 1- acre park that would preserve a majority of the on-site wetlands and would include the same number of units as the Proposed Project, including the affordable housing units and accessory dwelling units.

The text on page 1-7 under section 1.5 Organization of the Draft EIR is revised to read:

Chapter 2, Executive Summary—Summarizes the elements of the Proposed Project and the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project and provides a table that lists impacts, describes proposed mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation.

Section 3.3, Air Quality
The text in the last paragraph on page 3.3-2 is revised to read:

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3205 of 4422 ends

3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-2
The greatest precipitation in the City occurs from October November to April March, during which time the rainfall averages 2–7 5 inches per month. The average annual precipitation is 34.6126.09 inches. The City has a mild climate with an annual average temperature of 7563 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The coolest months of the year are typically December November through February, with an annual average low of 36 41°F.

The warmest months are typically June through September, with an annual average high of 89 90 °F. Prevailing wind direction in the City Project area (as measured at the St.

Helena Napa station, approximately 0.42 22 miles southwest southeast of the Project site) is from the west (WRCC 2016 NOAA 2022)
1 .

Section 3.6, Geology and Soils
The third sentence of the first paragraph on page 3.6-12 is revised to read:

The 1906 earthquake was of a substantial magnitude and the 1969 earthquakes were was of a more moderate magnitude though with an earthquake epicenters located near downtown Santa Rosa.”
Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality
The fourth sentence of the last paragraph on page 4.9-7 is deleted:

During such a flood, the style of flooding onsite would be slow and gradual, since the high velocity flows remain limited to the regulatory floodway.

The first paragraph on page 3.9-12 is revised to read:

Furthermore, in highly unlikely catastrophic situations (< a 0.5% annual chance) where the levee may be overtopped or in a 200+ year flood event, Proposed Project residents would have ample warning to evacuate prior to flooding. Based on a comparison of the base flood elevation to proposed lot pad elevations, flooding of Proposed Project lots would range between 0 and 5 feet in depth, with the deepest flooding occurring on the northern part of the Project site. This level of flooding would leave upper floors or residences available for refuge. Because of this, the risks from a 200+ year flood and/or levee failure are limited to property damage rather than risk of life. As previously indicated, this would be an impact of the pre-existing environment on the Proposed Project rather than the Proposed Project’s impact on the environment.

The first sentence in the second paragraph on page 3.9-19 is revised to read:
1 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022. “NOWData: NOAA Online Weather Data.” Accessed September 2022.https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=mtr.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3206 of 4422 ends

3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-3
Given the proximity and similar setting, groundwater levels are expected to be similar or possibly shallower beneath the Project site. According to the findings of the well capacity and sustainability report (Appendix L), the existing agricultural well on the Project site (proposed to be located in Parcel B on the tentative subdivision map) was constructed in 1976 to a depth of 410 feet bgs; with a current (2022) yield of 350 gallons per minute (gpm).

The second sentence in the last paragraph on page 3.9-43 is revised to read:

Therefore, the proposed pumping from this well is not likely to have any a less direct effect on surface flow in the Napa River than if it directly pumped from the alluvial deposits.

Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation
The last paragraph on page 3.12-5 is revised to read2:

Additionally, an approximately 0.6 miles pedestrian path/trail is located parallel to the gravel levee maintenance road located adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project site, as shown in Figure 3.12-1. The levee maintenance road is not a City recreation trail but is used informally as a trail by local residents.

Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems
The last sentence in the third complete paragraph on page 3.13-2 is revised to read:

It is assumed these vineyards have previously been irrigated by the on-site well, which constitutes the only water use on site at present. However, since the well is currently not currently in operation it is likely that if the vineyard is not currently receiving artificial irrigation.

The last paragraph on page 3.13-3 is revised to read:

In total, the City is authorized to divert and store 13,800 acre-feet from Bell Canyon Reservoir each year, and directly divert 1 cubic foot per second between November 15 and April 15 (150 days) of each year. Of the City’s total authorized amount, 2,000 acrefeet can only be diverted and stored between November 15 and April 15 of each year (City of St. Helena 2010).

The last sentence at the top of page 3.13-8 is revised to read:

There is an existing well on the Project site that is presently not in operation (see Section

3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality for more information on the existing well and groundwater resources).

The second sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.13-8 is revised to read:
2 Figure 3.12-1 is included at the end of this chapter.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3207 of 4422 ends

3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-4
Water from the Bell Canyon Reservoir is treated by three licensed water treatment operators at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant (WTP), located on Crystal Springs Road in the northeastern part of the City (City of St. Helena 2015a, 2019a).

The second sentence of page 3.13-26 is revised to read:

This translates to a wastewater generation rate of 19.88 acre-feet per year, or 0.018 MGD 14,000 gallons per day (0.014 MGD) during average dry weather flows (ADWF) and 23,400 gallons per day (0.0234 MGD) during peak wet weather flows (Appendix J Carollo 2022).

The second sentence of the second paragraph on page 3.13-29 is revised to read:

The Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 0.018 0.014 MGD of wastewater during ADWF and 0.0234 MGD during PWWF while in operation (Carollo 2022).

The third and fourth sentences of the fourth paragraph on page 3.13-32 are revised to read:

The Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 0.018 0.014 MGD of wastewater during ADWF and 0.0234 MGD during PWWF (Carollo 2022). As the WWTP currently treats an average flow of 0.384 MGD, the additional 0.018 0.014 MGD combined with the current average flow of 0.384 MGD would not exceed the plant’s permitted allowable ADWF effluent limit of 0.5 MGD, as specified under its NPDES permit (City of St. Helena 2016).

The second sentence of the second paragraph on page 3.13-36 is revised to read:

The Proposed Project would increase wastewater generation in the City by producing approximately 0.018 0.014 MGD at buildout (Carollo 2022).

Section 3.13.6 References shall include the following additional reference:

Carollo Engineers, Incorporated (Carollo), 2022. Hunter Subdivision Hydraulic Modeling Analysis, June 24, 2022.

Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation
The last sentence in the second paragraph on page 3.14-13 is revised to read:

Weekday service generally occurs every 45 minutes starting at 6:15 a.m. and ending at 10:45 p.m. Weekend service is provided every hour and is truncated during the morning and night periods. Service is not provided on weekends or major holidays.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3208 of 4422 ends

3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-5
The first sentence in the fourth paragraph on page 3.14-13 is revised to read:

The Napa Valley Wine Train also passes through the city; however, it is mainly used as a tourist attraction and not for commuting or passenger service purposes. Stops are limited and occur on an irregular basis in the city.

Chapter 5, Alternatives
The title of Tables 5-2 and 5-3 on pages 5-10 and 5-11 are revised to read:

Table 5-2
Alternative 2: No Project/No Action General Plan Alternative Projected Solid Waste Generation
Land Use
Generation Rate
(tons/day/unit)
Waste Disposed
(tons per day)
152 Single-family Residential Units 0.0033 0.502
Total 0.502
Source: CalRecycle 2018.

Table 5-3
Alternative 2: No Project/No Action General Plan Alternative Student Generation Grades
Student Generation Rate
(per total number of units) Students Generated
K-2 0.058 8.816
3-5 0.080 12.16
6-8 0.088 13.38
9-12 0.088 15.84
Total 57
Source: SHUSD 2010.

The second sentence in the second paragraph on page 5-11 under the ability of the No Project/General Plan Alternative to meet the Project objectives is revised to read:

However, this alternative would may not achieve the Proposed Project objective of developing a variety of housing types, including multifamily housing and ADUs. Housing would be less affordable to a range of incomes since development would be limited to single-family homes.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3209 of 4422 ends

3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-6
Table 5-7 starting on page 5-29 is revised to read:

3.14-6: Under Cumulative conditions,
would the Proposed Project increase
hazards due to a geometric design
feature or incompatible use? This is
considered a less than significant
impact.

LS NI LSSU LSSU LSSU
Appendix K
Table 7 of Appendix K, Traffic Impact Study, page 36, is revised to read:

The change to Table 7 corrects a typographical error. The Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour for Intersection #12 should read Level of Service (LOS) C, and not E. The analysis in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is based on the delay of 18.5 seconds, which corresponds to LOS C.

Therefore, the project does not result in an unacceptable level of service for the AM peak hour at Intersection No. 12, and this correction does not change the results of the TIS. It should be noted that the TIS was prepared to meet City development requirements and not for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). LOS is not considered an indicator of a significant environmental effect under CEQA.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3210 of 4422 ends

Walking Path/Trail
Levee Maintenance
Road
128
29 Hollis Ln
Paseo Grand Dr
S tarr Ave
Allison Ave
June Ln
Paulson Ct
GranadaCt
Del Monte Ct
Fulton
Ln
San Lucas Ct
Peppertree Cir
Madrona Ave
Library Ln
Del Campo Ct
Kidd Ranch Rd
Stockton St
Crinella Dr
Church St
Kearney St
Ma riposa Ln
Del Rio Ct
Redondo
Ct
Brown St
Mitchell Dr
Edwards St
Pratt Ave
Money Way
Pine St
Oak Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Laguna SecaCt
Signorelli Cir
Tainter St
McCorkle Ave
Spring St
Meadowcreek Cir
Adams St
Railroad Ave
Chiles Ave
Hunt A ve
Pope St
29 Main St
Napa River Loop
Hunter Subdivision Project
SOURCE: Napa County 2015, Bing 2022
Date: 6/22/2022 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1083901\MAPDOC\FigureX_NapaRiverLoop.mxd 0 305 610Feet
Napa River Loop
Hunter Subdivision Project Boundary
St. Helena City Boundary
101
37 12
221
29 1
116
175
121
12 128
128
16 680
780
5 505
80 Lake County
Sonoma County
Yolo County
Marin County
Solano County
Project Site
FIGURE 3.12-1
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3211 of 4422 ends

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3212 of 4422 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-1
CHAPTER 4

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This chapter contains the comment letters received in response to the Draft EIR during the public comment period (September 23 through November 30, 2021), as well as the transcripts from the November 2 and November 30, 2021, Planning Commission hearings on the Draft EIR. A list of all commenters is provided in Chapter 2. Each comment letter or Planning Commission comment is numbered, each comment is bracketed, and responses are provided to each comment. To assist the reader, a brief summary of the comment has been provided; however, it is only a summary and does not repeat the comment verbatim. Please refer back to the letter for the specific comment.

Master Responses have been provided to respond to the same or similar comments raised in numerous comment letters addressing the following issues:
• Emergency evacuation (Master Response 1),
• Availability of adequate water supply and compliance with the City’s water neutral requirements (Master Response 2),
• Stability of the Napa River levee and flooding concerns (Master Response 3), and • Adequacy of the City’s wastewater conveyance capacity (Master Response 4) are provided on the following pages.

The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the Draft EIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the Draft EIR where the requested information can be found.

Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the project unrelated to its environmental impacts) are noted for the record. Where text changes in the Draft EIR are warranted based on comments received, updated project information, or information provided by City of St. Helena staff, those changes are noted in the response to comment, and are listed in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.

Any changes to the analysis contained in the Draft EIR represent only minor clarifications/ amplifications and do not constitute significant new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3213 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-2

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3214 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-3
MASTER RESPONSE 1: EMERGENCY EVACUATION
Numerous comments were raised regarding emergency evacuation, specifically for residents of the adjacent Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park (Vineyard Valley). Concerns included the addition of vehicles from the Proposed Project and the potential to hinder evacuation of residents in the area, including in the Vineyard Valley development during an emergency.

Commentors asked whether this impact was considered and expressed concern about potential adverse impacts to public safety.

Roads that would provide emergency access near the Project site include Pope Street, Hunt Avenue, Starr Avenue, Adams Street, and Silverado Trail as well as the existing levee maintenance road that borders the northwest boundary of the Project site and the adjacent City detention basin. The Vineyard Valley development currently has only one access to enter/exit the development from Pope Street. Emergency access is provided via the maintenance road adjacent to the northern boundary.

On August 3, 2021, the St. Helena Police Department in conjunction with the St. Helena Fire Department conducted a practice emergency evacuation drill of Vineyard Valley residents. The emergency simulated a major incident, such as a fire, where the residents of Vineyard Valley would be asked to leave in a moment's notice in their vehicles. Residents evacuated in approximately 25 to 30 minutes. The attached “After Action Report,” dated Sept 20, 2021, provides additional detail on the evacuation drill.

Based on the results of the evacuation drill, the St. Helena Police Department has concluded that any additional traffic from the Proposed Project would not significantly impact the ability of Vineyard Valley residents to safely evacuate the development in the event of an emergency. The Police Department also concluded that the proposed extension of Starr Avenue to Adams Street will help facilitate future evacuations by providing additional roadway capacity and additional routing options for emergency traffic (J.Tharp September 2021)1. If, for some reason, the levee maintenance road is closed residents of Vineyard Valley would exit using the access onto Pope Street.

Another concern with regard to the Proposed Project’s potential impact on emergency evaluation concerned construction activities and their potential to block access to the levee maintenance road in the event of an emergency. Construction equipment would be staged on the Project site and would not be allowed to to park or be stored on or block access to the maintenance road. Access to the maintenance road would be maintained during all construction activities, even during construction of the extension of Adams Street, to ensure adequate emergency access would be available. All construction trucks and equipment would access the site from either Starr Avenue or Adams Street. No construction vehicles would be permitted on the levee maintenance road.

Emergency access and public safety is evaluated in the Draft EIR in Sections 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.12, Public Services and Recreation and 3.14, Transportation and 1 City of St. Helena Police Department, After Action Report, Lt. Justin Tharp, September 20, 2021.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3215 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-4
Circulation. The St. Helena Fire Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map and has not identified any issues with the Project’s proposed emergency access.

As discussed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Napa County, in coordination with other jurisdictions including the City, has prepared a Draft 2020 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, which has not yet been adopted (DEIR p. 3.8-11). The plan covers each of the major natural hazards that pose risks to County infrastructure and residents and includes:
• Focusing resources on the greatest risks and vulnerabilities, • Building partnerships by involving citizens, organizations, and businesses, • Increasing education and awareness of threats and hazards, as well as their risks, • Communicating priorities to state and federal officials, and • Aligning risk reduction with other community objectives.

The potential for the Project to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is evaluated under Impact 3.8-3 on page 3.8-20 of the Draft EIR. As noted in the discussion, the Project includes three points of access -- the extension of Starr Avenue, Adams Street, and emergency vehicle access via the levee maintenance road-- to facilitate the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles, including the City and County Fire Department’s apparatus, Project residents, and Vineyard Valley residents. The emergency vehicle access onto the maintenance road would be designed with bollards or a fence that would be kept locked. In the event of an emergency requiring evacuation, police or fire personnel/vehicles would have access to remove the bollards/unlock the gate through a locked box (e.g., knox box) to enable access to the site and as a third egress option for Project residents to evacuate. The Project has been designed to ensure all streets and roads are adequate in terms of width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide multiple points of emergency ingress and egress to ensure a safe evacuation in the event of an emergency.

The ability of the City’s police and fire services to protect future Project homes and residents is addressed in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation. As discussed, the Project site would be served by the City’s police and fire departments located at 1480 Main Street, approximately

0.2 miles from the site. Development of the Project site would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services; however, as discussed on page 3.12-14, the Project is required to comply with Chapter 15.36 of the City’s Municipal Code and the State Building Code, which requires installation of approved automatic sprinkler systems in all single-family and multifamily buildings. The Project would be developed consistent with 1993 General Plan Policy 8.5.6 and 2019 General Plan Policy PS4.D, which requires new development to meet the minimum fire flow rates specified by the City’s Fire Code. In addition, as mentioned above all streets and roads are designed to be adequate in terms of width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide emergency ingress and egress. The site and construction plans for the proposed single family homes and the multi-family development on Lot 52 would be subject to plan review by the City’s Fire Department to ensure proper access for fire and emergency response is provided and required fire suppression features are included.

Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation also addresses adequate emergency access under Impact 3.14-4 on page 3.14-51. The analysis reiterates what has previously been mentioned:
the Project includes two primary access points, Starr Avenue and Adams Street as well as a Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3216 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-5
separate emergency vehicle access. In the event of an emergency there would be three roadways that would enable vehicles to safely enter/exit the Project site and all streets and roads would be designed to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3217 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-6

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3218 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-7
MASTER RESPONSE 2: ST. HELENA WATER SUPPLY AND WATER NEUTRAL

POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT
Numerous commenters have questioned the ability of the City of St. Helena (City) to meet the water demands of the Hunter Subdivision project (Proposed Project or Project), the viability of relying on the City’s Water Neutral Policy, how the effects of climate change and current drought conditions are considered, and whether implications of the outcome of the City’s Water Audit lawsuit should be included in the analysis. The following responds to these concerns.

Water Demand
The Draft EIR addresses the City’s water supply and availability in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems. The City currently sources its water supply from Bell Canyon Reservoir, extracted groundwater from the Stonebridge Well Complex, and water purchased from the City of Napa (DEIR pp. 3.13-2 and 3). Bell Canyon Reservoir has a physical storage capacity of 2,400 acre-feet (AF) with a safe yield estimated at between 500-1,100 AF. Existing water rights permit the City to divert up to 1,800 AF between November 15 and April 15 of each year. The City owns and operates two active groundwater wells, collectively known as the Stonebridge Well Complex, that have a combined capacity of approximately 595 gallons per minute (gpm). These wells have the potential to provide 960 acre-feet of potable water per year if both are operated continuously (DEIR p. 3.13-7).

However, the City limits groundwater production to a long-term average not to exceed 450 AF per year. As stated on page 3.9-19 of the Draft EIR, groundwater pumping at these two wells has averaged 350 AFY between 2006 and 2019, with a range of 182 acre-feet in 2012 to a high of 526 acre-feet in 2013. This period captures multi-year drought conditions and according to monitoring data of a groundwater monitoring well located approximately 600 feet from the Project site, the groundwater level trend has been stable through this period (DEIR p. 3.9-42).

The City of Napa is contracted to provide the City with a minimum of 600 AF of water with an option for an additional 200 AF when feasible (DEIR p. 4.13-4). In the 2019 watershed report for Bell Canyon, the reservoir provided 43.6% of the City’s water supply, the City of Napa supplied

42.5%, and the Stonebridge Wells the remaining 13.8% in 2018. However, the share of water from each source can change from year to year as the three sources of water supply allow for flexibility in order to adapt to changing conditions.

As shown in Table 3.13-1 on page 3.13-3 of the Draft EIR, the City’s water deliveries have varied from year to year but overall have shown a decreasing trend from 1,882 AF in 2013 to 1,629 AF in 2020. The City’s Safe Yield Committee determined that the potable water system can provide a total supply of up to 1,950 AF per year as a sustainable rate on a long-term basis (DEIR p. 3.13-11). This safe yield value recognizes that drought periods will be experienced and that circumstances may require the implementation of water restrictions (Phase III) during a dry year, but that these restrictions do not represent “undue hardships” (St. Helena Municipal Code Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter 13.04 Water Service System, Article 2 Water Shortage Emergencies, Drought and Water Conservation). The Committee considered “undue hardship” to be Phase IV or V restrictions, or three or more consecutive months of Phase III restrictions.

The domestic water demand for the Project at 19.88 AF per year is based on the Water Neutral Report prepared for the Project (Appendix J). The Water Neutral Report also estimates Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3219 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-8
outdoor/landscaping uses, which would be served by the onsite agricultural well and is therefore separate from the analysis of domestic water use.

The Water Neutral Report conservatively assumes the Proposed Project will include eight persons per single family residence which is much higher than the City’s average of 2.45 persons per household (DEIR p. 3.13-24),
2 and therefore likely overstates actual water use. However, assuming this conservative estimate of 19.88 AF of domestic water use per year, the additional demand of the Project in combination with the recent total deliveries (1,629 + 19.88 = 1,648.88 AF) would still be far below the City’s adopted safe yield of 1,950. Therefore, the new water demand associated with the Proposed Project could be met by the City’s potable water system even without the water offset requirements of the City’s Water Neutral Policy, as discussed further below.

Water Neutral Policy
The City’s Water Neutral Policy included in Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency, of the Municipal Code requires that new development be water-neutral (from the City-delivered water system) through any combination of on-site water conservation measures and/or off-site retrofitting and/or use of well water (DEIR p. 3.13-21). For the Proposed Project, there are no opportunities for on-site water conservation since the site has no current water demand.

Therefore, the Project must demonstrate water neutrality through off-site retrofitting and system improvements which must be demonstrated in a quantitative water analysis of the Project.

Per Municipal Code Section 13.12.050, the developer is responsible for identifying residential or nonresidential properties eligible for retrofitting and verify to the Department of Public Works that the required number of retrofits have been completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Appendix J of the Draft EIR includes the quantitative water analysis completed for the Project as required by the Water Neutral Policy. The report concluded that the offset of the Project water demands could be met through financial assistance with existing system improvements (e.g., payment of required fee) commensurate with the cost of retrofitting existing residences with low flow fixtures, but also includes a variety of suggested methods to increase domestic water supply or reduce demand to offset the Project’s domestic water use.

As detailed in the Water Neutral Policy, the water demand of the Project would equate to retrofitting 333 residences with water conservation fixtures, but this is not to say that the policy can only be met through residential retrofits. For example, the Water Neutral Report referenced the potential for assisting the City in repairs to the transmission line between the City and Rutherford where a substantial amount of water is lost due to the current condition of the old pipeline. Reducing water losses is a gain for the supply system.

As part of the Project’s proposed Conditions of Approval it states that no building permits may be issued until the developer has identified and implemented offsite improvements that reduce water loss from the public water distribution system and/or identify and implement offsite improvements that result in a net increase in potable water availability equivalent to 19.8 AFY, 2 Exterior water demand (landscape irrigation, etc.) would be met by an onsite well and is not included in this estimate, which includes interior domestic uses only.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3220 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-9
or a combination of these. Therefore, with adherence to this regulatory requirement and the required Conditions of Approval, occupancy of the Proposed Project would not occur until the City’s Public Works Department has verified completion of these retrofits or system improvements that meet the City’s construction standards to offset the Project’s new water demand. As a result, the City would be able to meet the Project’s water supply demand and result in a less-than-significant impact.

Climate Change
One of the effects of global climate change is an increase in variabilities of weather patterns and an increased probability to experience periods of drought. While climate change can create drier years in which precipitation is below annual averages, it can also result in very wet years.

The City recognizes that future periods of drought conditions are likely and may become more frequent. The establishment of the safe yield of 1,950 AF per year completed by the City’s Safe Yield Committee provides the parameters for long term management of water supply resources.

As discussed above, the new water demands for the Proposed Project would be offset through adherence to the City’s Water Neutral Policy where retrofits or system improvements equivalent to the proposed new demands would be in place prior to issuance of building permits for development of the Project.

However, as mentioned above, the City may still be forced to enact water conservation and/or water rationing requirements during drought periods because of strains on the system that would be due to the effects of climate change. The City’s Municipal Code (Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter

13.04 Water Service System, Article 2 Water Shortage Emergencies, Drought and Water Conservation) establishes the thresholds and requirements for water emergency phases, water conservation, and regulations that can adapt to changing conditions and enact emergency requirements for users as appropriate for long term water supply planning.

Therefore, the Draft EIR does consider the effects of climate change in Project impacts related to water supplies. The EIR determines that the Project can be adequately served based on existing water supplies. Compliance with the City’s Water Neutral Policy would further ensure that the Project does not adversely effect the City’s future water supplies.

Water Audit Lawsuit
Several comments have referenced the Water Audit lawsuit and have suggested that the outcome of that lawsuit should be considered as part of the analysis of water supply and hydrologic resources related to the Project. The lawsuit claims the City has violated its public trust in its management of water resources. The plaintiffs seek to increase monitoring and oversight of groundwater and surface water resources. The lawsuit claims poor documentation of water uses, including pumping at the City’s Stonebridge Well Complex, and water deliveries to vineyards, wineries, and the Meadowood resort.

The Water Audit’s complaint does not ask for changes to existing water uses. Instead, it seeks an injunction to stop the City from issuing new groundwater well drilling permits until enough Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3221 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-10
information is available to make informed water allocation decisions. The Proposed Project does not include a requirement for a new groundwater well drilling permit and so a potential injunction on new well drilling permits would not affect the Project.

As discussed on page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR, there is an inactive groundwater well located in the northern portion of the Project site that may have been historically used to provide construction water for the City’s Flood Protection Project and was used in the past for agricultural irrigation. The Project proposes to use this well for the irrigation of public and private landscaping and all other outdoor uses, which are estimated to require 17.16 AF per year (DEIR p. 3.13-32).

Regarding concerns about hydraulic conductivity with the adjacent Napa River, a site-specific well capacity and sustainability report was prepared that included conducting a 24-hour pump test as part of evaluating the hydrogeologic characteristics of the existing on-site well (Appendix L of the Draft EIR). The pump test ran at a rate of 40 gpm, which was nearly four times as high as the proposed rate for the Project (10.6 gpm). The study concluded that the onsite well draws from an aquifer with high transmissivity (i.e., ability of the water bearing unit to transmit water flow) and that the proposed pumping would not likely adversely affect either local water levels or Napa River flows. The onsite well is screened from 80 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 410 feet bgs, which is within the deeper volcanic aquifer and below the Napa Valley alluvium (the shallow water bearing unit that is considered hydraulically connected to the Napa River).

Therefore, whereas the Water Audit lawsuit is primarily concerned with the management of water resources that would affect the water levels of the Napa River, the well capacity and sustainability report determined that the pumping of the onsite well to supply the Project’s public and private landscaping would not adversely affect flows in the Napa River. The analysis under Impact 3.9-2 starting on page 3.9-40 of the Draft EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with using the on-site well.

Considering that the Project does not require obtaining a well drilling permit and that a sitespecific hydrogeologic study has demonstrated that the Project would not adversely affect water levels, the outcome of the Water Audit lawsuit would not alter the findings of the Draft EIR.

CEQA requires that the determination of significant effects be based on substantial evidence that include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, expert opinion supported by facts, and not speculation (CEQA Guidelines § 21082.2). Therefore, the final outcome of the Water Audit lawsuit may have ramifications for the City in its long-term management of water resources but would not affect the analysis or impact significance determinations that were made in the Draft EIR.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3222 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-11
MASTER RESPONSE 3: NAPA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION/LEVEE
The Hunter Subdivision Project (Project or Proposed Project) was in the past in a flood zone but is now protected from a 200-year flood event (equivalent to less than a 0.5% annual chance) by the St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Protection Project (Flood Protection Project). The Project does not have an impact on the Flood Protection Project’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly.

Many commenters have raised concerns that the Project would put people and property at unreasonable risk if a major flood event overtops the levee3(i.e., greater than 200-year flood) and/or if the levee fails. These concerns generally revolve around the Project’s perceived physical impacts on the levee; the levee’s current condition, inspections, and maintenance; a perception that the project would increase existing flood risks for neighboring communities (e.g., Vineyard Valley and Hunt’s Grove); confusion over levee certification/accreditation; and legal, liability, and insurance questions.

Comments that raised concerns about growth inducement (due to the levee reducing SFHAs in the City) are comments on the Flood Protection Project, not the Project.

As a general matter, the bulk of the comments received do not question the accuracy of the information contained in the Draft EIR or the adequacy of the analysis presented. Rather, they express differing opinions about levels of acceptable risk and a lack of trust in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Flood Protection Project. The Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the flood hazards present; the engineering, design, and maintenance of the Flood Protection Project; and the City’s emergency management procedures in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality (Draft EIR pp. 3.9-6 through 3.9-13). This information was provided for reference purposes and addresses a majority of the comments received that relate to flooding and levee protection. The reason this information was included in the Environmental Setting section of Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), rather than being addressed as an impact, is because impacts of the environment on a project or plan (as opposed to impacts of a project or plan on the environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review. 4 Flood Risks
The Project does not have an impact on the levee’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly. California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” but they must analyze hazards the project might risk exacerbating. For example, if a project proposes development on a site with existing subsurface hazards, then grading/development of the project may exacerbate the risk of those existing subsurface hazards. 3 Note that references to the levee are inclusive of the floodwall component of the Flood Protection Project. 4 “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473.)
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3223 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-12
Accordingly, the State Office of Planning and Research’s 2018 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines—which the City uses as its CEQA thresholds of significance—removed reference to property damage, personal injury, or loss of life due to flooding or levee failure (i.e., pre-existing hazards) from Appendix G (included in the CEQA Guidelines).

Placement of the Project within an area protected from the 200-year flood does not substantially increase public exposure to flood risk, even though the risk is not zero. The Draft EIR acknowledges that there is residual risk to residents which is why the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA encourages the purchase of optional flood insurance (i.e., FEMA preferred risk policy) (Draft EIR p. 3.9-8, first paragraph). The Project’s Conditions of Approval require that prior to issuance of building permits, all future occupants will be provided information which describes the flood risk and notifies the buyer of the availability of low-cost Preferred Risk Policy flood insurance. Comments that address legal, liability, and/or insurance issues fall outside the scope of CEQA review, because they are not related to impacts of the project on the environment.

It is not the role of the Draft EIR to guarantee that there would be zero risk to life or property in the event of an extreme (i.e., greater than 200-year) or catastrophic flood event. The level of risk to the Project and its residents is reasonably and acceptably low due to the 200-year level of protection afforded by the Flood Protection Project. The description of flood emergency stages, preparedness, and response (Draft EIR pp. 3.9-11 and 3.9-12) remains accurate and indicates a reasonable plan for alerting and protecting residents from major flood events.

In the last paragraph on page 3.9-7, the Draft EIR speculates as to the style of flooding that would occur in the Project site based on its position outside of the regulatory floodway, if there were a levee overtopping event. The style of flooding would be dependent on the location, speed of water level rise, and levee response to an overtopping event. No portion of the Project site is located within the FEMA regulatory floodway. Therefore, the text on page 3.9-7 is revised to remove the reference to flooding being “slow and gradual.” Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for the revised text.

For the same reasons, the text on page 3.9-12 is also revised to remove the characterization of what could happen in the event of a flood. As previously indicated, this would be an impact of the pre-existing environment on the Proposed Project rather than the Proposed Project’s impact on the environment. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for the revised text.

Clarification on Terminology/Concepts
Many commenters have expressed concern about the levee’s design and construction, because it was not designed and built by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and is maintained by the City. As noted above, the Project does not have an impact on the levee’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly. California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” but they must analyze hazards the project might risk exacerbating. Accordingly, comments Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3224 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-13
regarding existing structures, such as the levee, that will not be directly or indirectly impacted the Project, are outside the scope of CEQA review for this Project.

However, for strictly informational purposes the City provides the following: there are numerous nonfederal levees throughout the United States that are safely built and maintained by local and/or state entities. The City of St. Helena Department of Public Works oversees inspection, maintenance and repairs of the levee, and has confirmed that the levee was designed and built by qualified contractors in accordance with ACOE engineering and safety standards (Draft EIR p. 3.9-8).

Levee certification is the process that deals specifically with the design and physical condition of the levee and is the responsibility of the levee owner or community in charge of the levee’s operations and maintenance. Certification must be completed for the levee to be eligible for accreditation by FEMA. Certification consists of documentation, signed and sealed by a registered Professional Engineer, as defined in Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), Section 65.2. By virtue of FEMA’s approval of the City’s application for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and subsequent revision of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the levee is a FEMA-accredited levee system5that has undergone the certification process. While FEMA does not design, build, maintain, inspect, or certify levees, it uses the best available data about flood hazards and levee conditions to create FIRMs and Flood Risk Products (FRPs). These FIRMs and FRPs are tools that provide a more precise, up-to-date picture of the flood hazards facing levee-impacted areas, which is important given that the flood risks change over time.

The modern construction of the levee makes it more secure than other accredited levee systems that may have received accreditation decades ago, and the 200-year level of protection provides substantial additional protection against flooding that takes into consideration increased rainfall and runoff due to climate change.

Levee Condition and Maintenance/Inspections and City Detention Basin Several concerns were raised that the levee has not been properly maintained and may be subject to reduced performance due to animal burrows, erosion, and/or pump malfunctions. As discussed below, these issues are outside the scope of CEQA review of the Project, because the Project does not physically infringe upon or otherwise affect the levee. (See California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.) However, for strictly informational purposes, the City provides the following: the City employs qualified individuals to inspect the levee on a monthly basis to detect any potential issues and take action on them as they arise. For example, in the past issues were found with the operation/startup of the detention basin’s pump and it will be repaired by a qualified contractor.

Further, it is up to the professional judgement of the City’s engineer as to when any animal burrows may compromise the levee’s safety. Per the inspection reports, the City has an animal 5 A FEMA-Accredited Levee System is levee system that FEMA has shown on a FIRM that is recognized as reducing the flood hazards posed by a 1-percent-annual-chance flood. This determination is based on the submittal of data and documentation as required by 44CFR§65.10 of the NFIP regulations. The area landward of an accredited levee system is shown as Zone X (shaded) on the FIRM except for areas of residual flooding, such as ponding areas, which are shown as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3225 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-14
burrow control program in place and conducts burrow control activities as needed. The City also makes its levee inspection reports and summary reports available online here:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/flood-control-and-river-restoration-project.

Several commenters referred to erosion or runoff from the Project affecting the City’s detention basin. These commenters are referred to Draft EIR pages 3.9-44 and 3.9-45, which explains that the detention basin was designed assuming the Project would consist of 70% impervious (developed) area, when in fact it would consist of about 58% impervious area. The estimate of the Project’s impervious surface coverage was calculated based on design drawings of the Project. Accordingly, as discussed in the Draft EIR on page 3.9-45, the Project would not contribute increase flows or erosion to off-site properties because the detention basin has been adequately sized and designed.

Commenters also requested information on what funds were used to construct the levee (Flood Control Project), what funds the City uses for repair and maintenance of the levee, what funds would be available to repair homes in the event of a levee breach, would the City be held liable in the event of a levee breach, and is the City non-compliant with the terms of Measure A.6 Concerns regarding the financing of the levee, ongoing repairs and maintenance, financing to address damages in the event of a catastrophic flood, and liability are outside the scope of CEQA review, because they are not related to impacts of the project on the environment. In addition, economic effects of a project are not considered significant effects on the environment unless the economic changes are connected to physical environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a)).

Regarding the comment suggesting that the City could be non-compliant with the County’s Measure A ordinance, it is assumed the commenter is referencing subsection G, which states “none of the projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth in the County.” To clarify, the Project site has been designated and zoned for residential development since the City’s 1975 General Plan. The City’s Flood Protection Project was designed consistent with the intent of Measure A to provide flood protection to residents and businesses in the County.

Development of this site with residential uses would not be considered encouraging new population growth in the City because this site has been planned for future development for over 45 years.
6 Measure A is an ordinance of the Napa County Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Authority that adopted by Napa County residents in 1998. It is used to finance the Napa River Flood Protection Project. Each City and Town in Napa County receives a portion of Measure A revenues to fund flood protection projects. Subsection G states “none of the projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth in the County.” Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3226 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-15
MASTER RESPONSE 4: WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE CAPACITY
Numerous commenters raised concerns that the additional wastewater flows from the Hunter Subdivision project (Proposed Project or Project) would significantly exacerbate an existing capacity issue in the vicinity of the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. The concerns include the issue of potential increased backflow incidents that affect the Vineyard Valley mobile home community. Commenters also questioned the assumptions that were used to estimate the flows that would originate from the Project, which they assert underestimate the wastewater flows that would occur with the Project. Capacity of the City’s wastewater infrastructure to accommodate the Project was another concern raised in numerous comment letters. The following responds to these concerns.

Wastewater Flow Assessment
The Draft EIR addresses the Project’s wastewater flows in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems. To support the findings of the Draft EIR, a hydraulic modeling analysis was recently conducted by Carollo Engineers who prepared the citywide Integrated Utility Master Plan (Carollo 2022). As part of their work for the Master Plan, Carollo had constructed a hydraulic model of the entire wastewater collection system for the City. The purpose of the model was to identify capacity deficiencies within the collection system under both average dry weather flows (ADWF) and peak wet weather flow (PWWF) conditions.

To identify the potential effects of the Project, the model was updated by adding the wastewater loads that would be coming from the Project to the point of connection to the sewer system, which is at the intersection of Del Rio Court and Paseo Grand Drive, upstream of the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. The evaluation criteria for the Project specific analysis was the same used for the Master Plan analysis and included conservative assumptions on surcharge depth7, maximum flow depth, and peak dry weather flow conditions (i.e., no surcharging is allowed). A copy of the memorandum prepared by Carollo is included as Appendix A to this Final EIR.

For the Proposed Project, the estimated ADWF flows would be 14,000 gallons per day (gpd) (Carollo 2022). The ADWF flows are calculated by multiplying the projected increase in residential units by the residential density of 2.45 persons per household and multiplying the result by the per capita flowrate of 66 gallons per capita per day, consistent with standards used for the citywide Master Plan. The Project’s PWWF flows were also calculated based on methods used for the Master Plan and were estimated at 23,400 gpd (Carollo 2022).

The findings of the hydraulic analysis determined that under existing conditions, there is sufficient capacity within the existing sewer system for all ADWF flows. However, under PWWF conditions, there is an existing deficiency upstream of what would be the Project’s point of connection that is creating a bottleneck. This bottleneck was identified in the Master Plan as a future upgrade project (Project WWGM-6) that would replace approximately 450 feet of 15-inch and 18-inch diameter pipelines along Del Campo Court, between Hunt Avenue and Paseo 7 Sewers are surcharged when the supply of water to be carried is greater than the capacity of the pipes to carry the flow. The surface of the wastewater in manholes rises above the top of the sewer pipe, and the sewer is under pressure or a head, rather than at atmospheric pressure.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3227 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-16
Grand drive with a 21-inch diameter pipe. In addition, 910 feet of 18-inch diameter pipeline along Paseo Drive, between Del Campo Court and Los Robles Court, would also be upgraded to a 21-inch diameter pipeline under Project WWGM-6.

With the additional wastewater flows that would be attributed to the Proposed Project (14,000 gpd), the hydraulic modeling still shows that under ADWF there would be sufficient capacity within the existing sewer system. Under PWWF conditions, there are deficiencies in the capacity of the system, however the addition of the Project flows (23,400 gpd) did not identify any additional deficiencies that are not already present downstream of the Project site (Carollo 2022). The Project’s contribution represents only 0.5% of the PWWF flows, which is not considered to substantively exacerbate this existing deficiency (Carollo 2022).

Once the proposed Master Plan improvements are completed, and the upsizing of the pipes between Hunt Avenue and Los Robles Court is completed, there would be adequate capacity for both PWWF including flows from the Project (Carollo 2022). The hydraulic analysis verified that the recommended improvements provided in the Master Plan would still be valid and appropriate as stated in the plan.

Therefore, according to the hydraulic modeling which is consistent with the modeling being used for the citywide Master Plan, there is adequate capacity for the Project’s ADWF under existing conditions. During PWWF, the Project would not create any new deficiencies and would represent only a very small portion (0.5%) of total flows.

The City’s Master Plan already identifies existing deficiencies and have targeted projects like WWGM-6, which would upsize segments of the system, to alleviate current constraints such that the impacts would be considered less than significant, consistent with the findings of the Draft EIR.

Wastewater Flow Estimates
As noted above, according to the recent hydraulic analysis of projected wastewater flows from the Proposed Project prepared by Carollo Engineers (see Appendix A to this Final EIR), the Project is estimated to contribute 14,000 gpd during ADWF and 23,400 gpd during PWWF conditions. The PWWF were based on what is known as “peak rain derived inflow and infiltration (RDII)” which were estimated for the Project based on a peak RDII rate of 500 gpd per acre, consistent with the Master Plan.

The Project’s ADWF flows were calculated by multiplying the projected increase in residential units by the residential density of 2.45 persons per household and multiplying the result by a per capita flowrate of 66 gallons per capita per day, consistent with standards used for the citywide Master Plan.

The Draft EIR states that wastewater flows would be 18,000 gpd which is in between the ADWF and PWWF calculated in the memorandum. The figures and data from the memorandum are more recent and were calculated by the same engineering firm that is responsible for Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3228 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-17
developing the citywide Master Plan. As a result, the Draft EIR has been modified to be more consistent with the memorandum and the changes are provided in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.

The updated estimates for the Project’s flows under both ADWF and PWWF, do not change the findings of the Draft EIR’s impact assessment, and the wastewater flows attributed to the Project would still be considered less than significant as concluded in the Draft EIR.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3229 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-18

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3230 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-19
COMMENT LETTER 1
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3231 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3232 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-21
Response to Letter 1
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Patrick Band, Executive Director
November 2, 2021
1-1 The comment is requesting a 30-day extension to the Draft EIR public review period.

The Draft EIR was released for the required 45-day public review period on September 23, 2021 through November 8, 2021. In response to numerous requests, the City extended the comment period through November 30, 2021 for a total of 67 days. 1-2 The comment asserts the Draft has numerous shortcomings but does not provide any substantial evidence as to the basis for this assertion with the exception of stating the Draft EIR failed to include the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan and associated bicycle and multi-use facilities.

Information on existing bicycle facilities, specifically Class II bike lanes on area roadways is provided starting on page 3.14-2 in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation of the Draft EIR. Existing pedestrian facilities is described on page 3.14-7 and provided on Figure 3.14-3. A discussion of existing bicycle facilities and the transit system in the area is described on page 3.14-8. Figure 3.14-4 provides a graphic of the existing bicycle network in the City of St. Helena. As noted on page

3.14-8 (when the analysis was drafted), “The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) adopted the Countywide Bicycle Plan in October 2019, but the City has not yet adopted the plan.” Because the Countywide Bicycle Plan had not been adopted by the City it was not included under section 3.14.3, Regulatory Setting. In addition, a Condition of Approval has been included to require installation of bicycle facilities along the extension of Starr Avennue. The potential for the Project to adversely impact bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities is addressed under Impact 3.14-1 starting on page 3.14-39.
1-3 The comment reiterates a request to extend the Draft EIR comment period an additional 30 days.

Please see Response to Comment 1-1 that addresses this concern.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3233 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-22

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3234 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-23
COMMENT LETTER 2
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3235 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-24
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3236 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-25
Response to Letter 2
Our Town St. Helena
Our Town St. Helena Board of Directors
November 26, 2021
2-1 The comment notes Our Town St. Helena (OTSH) is a non-profit organization focused on creating and preserving affordable housing and the Hunter project has been under discussion by OTSH for the past 12 years.

The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.

The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
2-2 The comment references the need to advocate for housing that benefits the community and notes the need for affordable housing has expanded to include a much broader range of incomes.

The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.

The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
2-3 The comment refers to the City’s Inclusionary/In-Lieu Fee Requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 17.146) and questions if the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s requirements.

As noted in the Draft EIR Project Description on pages 2-18 and 2-32, review of an Affordable Housing Agreement by the City Council will be a subsequent discretionary process and is not part of the Tentative Map being considered by the City at this time. A determination of consistency with the City’s Inclusionary/In-Lieu Fee Requirements will be made at the time that subsequent Final Map application is submitted and reviewed.
2-4 The comment is addressing the proposed future cost of the houses.

The CEQA Guidelines do not require the fiscal or economic costs of a project to be evaluated. An EIR evaluates physical changes to the environment attributed to a project. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15358, subd. (b) [“[e]ffects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change”].) Physical changes result from land disturbance due to project construction and development of the overall project “footprint.” In addition, physical changes can also include an increase in demand for services and/or increased traffic associated with generating a new population.

However, economic considerations are not required to be analyzed or addressed.

Therefore, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3237 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-26
consideration. The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. 2-5 The comment offers an opinion that the affordable housing component would have little community benefit and that the Project homes may be purchased as second homes instead of primary residences.

The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. 2-6 The comment indicates the Project could be detrimental to the community by increasing demand on city services by people that commute into the city to work.

The Draft EIR evaluated the increase in demand for public services assuming the Project would be fully occupied by full-time residences. The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
2-7 The comment expresses a desire for the City to develop a housing strategy that meets the needs of the community and is supported by the community and addresses the need to provide workforce housing for a range of income brackets.

The comment also notes that people commuting into the City to work create traffic and congestion.

The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

The commentor is also invited to review the Housing Element of the St. Helena General Plan, which addresses local housing needs and includes policies and actions the City will undertake to help meet these needs. The comment does not identify any specific areas where the the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
2-8 The comment supports the City providing incentives to developers and increasing density for new development projects.

The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3238 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-27
Comment Letter 3
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3239 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-28
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3240 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-29
Response to Letter 3
Ron Amoroso
October 26, 2021
3-1 The comment references a movie “Kiss the Ground” that addresses carbon recapture to reduce CO2. The comment goes on to state that removal of the onsite vineyards and developing homes will increase heat and reduce the recapture of carbon back into the soil through photosynthesis. Lastly, the comment asks if the purchase of open space elsewhere would be “prime agricultural land”.

The Draft EIR addresses climate change in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The Project proposes developing the 16.9-acre site, including approximately 6 acres in existing vineyards, with 87 residential units. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed landscape plan includes planting approximately 185 trees, including scarlet maple (Acer Rubrum), Chinese pistache (Pistacia Chinensis) and tulip tree (Liriodendron Tulipifera). Furthermore, an approximately one-acre portion of the existing vineyard within the project site would remain. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) includes carbon content values, which are based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, to estimate the loss of sequestered carbon (release of CO2). Using the factor for “cropland,” the closest land use associated with the existing vineyards, removal of the vines would result in a rate of 6.2 MT CO2/acre. Regarding carbon sequestration from the planting of a variety of tree species, the Project would result in a sequestration rate of 0.0354 MT CO2/tree/year assuming growth over 20 years. Therefore, based on these considerations, the Project would result in an overall gain in sequestered carbon, reducing the Project’s GHG emissions presented in Table 3.7-6 of the Draft EIR.

As stated on page 3.2-2 in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the state’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) categorizes the eastern portion of the Project site as Farmland of Local Importance (9.0 acres). The western portion of the Project site is predominantly designated as Prime Farmland (5.8 acres), with portions of Farmland of Statewide Importance (0.6 acres) and Urban and Built-Up Land (0.8 acres) in the westernmost area of the Project site. To assess Project impacts the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was used. The model returned a Land Elevaluation or LE score of 35 and a Site Assessemnt or SA score of 13.8 for a total score of 48.8 (see DEIR pp. 3.2-9 – 3.2-10 and Appendix B). As shown in Table 3.2-3 on page 3.2-10, the loss of agricultural resources would be considered significant only if the individual LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. Therefore, impacts associated with the removal of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance were found to be less than significant.

If the applicant were to purchase undeveloped land there would be no requirement

5.8 acres would need to be Prime Farmland.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3241 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-30
3-2 The commenter requests the City vote no on the Project.

The comment’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
3-3 The comment is addressing concerns regarding the levee and raises FEMA certification of the levee. The comment also notes levees can fail and alleges the levee has never been inspected or approved by FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers and if the levee were to fail or be breached the City would be liable.

Please see Master Response 3 that addresses all concerns associated with the levee. 3-4 The comment is stating the Project applicant needs to provide additional security to cover any risks that may occur due to developing a former floodplain.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Please see Master Response 3 that addresses concerns associated with the levee and flooding. 3-5 The comment i addresses the availability of water to supply the Project and questions the viability of retrofitting existing fixtures to offset the project’s increase in water demand.

Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the issue of water supply. 3-6 The commenter does not support this Project and is recommending the Project not be approved.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3242 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-31
COMMENT LETTER 4
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3243 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-32

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3244 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-33
Response to Letter 4
Ron Amoroso
November 2, 2021
4-1 The comment indicates that the overall effects of the Project should be considered.

The Draft EIR prepared for the Project evaluates both the project-specific direct and indirect effects associated with construction and operation as well as the cumulative effects of conversion of the land from its existing undeveloped condition to a developed environment. The comment does not specify what overall effects the commentor believes were not addressed in the Draft EIR or why the analysis was inaccurate or inadequate. Therefore, no further response is required. 4-2 The comment refers to the practice of “regenerative agriculture” as a way to limit carbon and CO2 from entering the atmosphere and to “cleanse” the environment.

The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3245 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-34

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3246 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-35
COMMENT LETTER 5
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3247 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-36

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3248 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-37
Response to Letter 5
Bette Antor
November 29, 2021
5-1 The commenter states she lives in the adjacent Vineyard Valley mobile home park and is opposed to the Project because it would affect the health and welfare of the residents of Vineyard Valley.

The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate or how the Project would affect the health and welfare of Vineyard Valley residents; therefore, no further response is required. 5-2 The comment states that there would be a greater chance of flooding if the Project site would be converted from undeveloped land to “high-density building and paving”.

Conversion of the site from undeveloped to developed would not increase flood risks to the adjacent Vineyard Valley residents. Please see Master Response 3, which addresses concerns associated with flooding.

The use of the term “high density” may reflect the commentor’s opinion. However, based on the proposed residential density of 5.1 units per acres, the proposed development would be “medium density” as defined in the General Plan, not “high density” as the term is used in the General Plan.
5-3 The comment suggests that the City does not have adequate water supplies to serve current City residents.

Please see Master Response 2 that addresses water availability to serve the Project in addition to existing City residences and businesses. 5-4 The comment states that Project construction would block the emergency evacuation access for Vineyard Valley residents along the existing levee maintenance road resulting in an increase in traffic that could be a “life or death” situation for Vineyard Valley residents.

Project construction activities would not be allowed to block access to the levee maintenance road, as explained in Master Response 1. Access to the levee maintenance road would be maintained during all construction activities and in the event of an emergency access would be available. All construction trucks and equipment would access the site from either Starr Avenue or Adams Street. No truck access would be permitted on the levee maintenance road. Please see Master Response 1 that addresses emergency evacuation concerns for Vineyard Valley residents.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3249 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-38
5-5 The comment raises concerns that the Project would tie into the City’s existing water and sewer lines that also serve Vineyard Valley and that adequate capacity is not available in the existing water and sewer infrastructure to serve the Project.

The ability of the City’s existing water and wastewater infrastructure to serve the Project is addressed in the Draft EIR in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems.

An existing 10-foot wide public water line easement containing an active 12-inch water line bisects the north/northeast portion of the Project site. This easement is proposed to be abandoned as part of the Project and the water line relocated within the site. The Project would tie into this new water line with a looped 8-inch water main that would serve all the residences.

Wastewater flows from the western portion of the Project site are proposed to drain into an existing public manhole at the corner of Starr Avenue and Hunt Avenue via new 8- inch sewer pipes. The area east of Starr Avenue, lower in elevation, is proposed to drain east through the Project site via new 8-inch sewer pipes within a public easement and into an existing public manhole in the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. All new sewer mains and lines are sized to accommodate Project flows, per City standards. Please see also Master Response 4 that provides more details regarding the Project’s wastewater infrastructure and the ability of the City to convey and treat the Project’s wastewater. 5-6 The comment states Vineyard Valley would be affected by noise, dirt, and dust associated with Project construction.

As described in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project applicant is only requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map at this time. If the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved, the Project applicant would need approval from the City on an Affordable Housing Agreement; Design Review; Final Subdivision Map; and a Use Permit to construct the multi-family units before any grading or construction could begin.

If the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved and the applicant seeks and obtains all other required approvals, the first phase of construction would require site clearing, grading, and trenching for utilities followed by construction of the roadways and residences. For the purposes of the EIR it is assumed construction would occur over a 6+ year period, with the exception of the multi-family units, which the applicant proposes to build within a year of approval of all remaining required discretionary requirements (listed above). The secondary impacts of construction activities resulting in noise, dirt and dust are addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Section

3.11, Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR.
5-7 The comment notes that access to open space is good for peoples’ health and wellbeing and for the City of St. Helena.

The Project site is not publicly-owned and is therefore not a public open space for the local community to enjoy. The commenter’s general comments regarding the value of open space is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3250 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-39
consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.

Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for a copy of the trails map. As shown in the map existing trails will still allow access to the Napa River. 5-8 The commenter is stating opposition to the Project.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3251 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-40

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3252 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-41
COMMENT LETTER 6
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3253 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-42

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3254 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-43
Response to Letter 6
Craig and Debra Austin
November 2, 2021
6-1 The comment states that they oppose the Project due to potential traffic congestion and emergency access.

The commenters’ opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, in response to the comment’s concern related to traffic congestion impacts on emergency access, please see Master Response 1 for further information on emergency access and evacuation. 6-2 The comment raises a concern that the City does not have a sufficient water supply to support the Project.

The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. In response to the commenter’s concern related to the City’s water supply, please see Master Response 2 that addresses water supply.
6-3 The commenters state an opinion that no one in the City supports the Project.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3255 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-44

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3256 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-45
COMMENT LETTER 7
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3257 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-46
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3258 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-47
Response to Letter 7
Katie and Jacob Avery
November 30, 2021
7-1 The comment states general opposition to this type of Project type in this location.

The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. As noted in the Draft EIR on page 2-12 in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project site has been designated for residential development since the 1975 General Plan and is currently designated for Medium Density Residential in the City’s recently adopted General Plan Update 2040. 7-2 The comment states that the commenter and other City residents have undergone water saving measures and have been subject to fines for water use. The comment brings up concerns related to the City’s water supply and its ability to serve the Project. Specifically, the comment argues that expanded capacity and additional water storage are needed to serve the Project and that water efficiency requirements for plumbing and bathroom fixtures per the building code are not adequate to meet the City’s water neutrality requirements.

Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water to the Project and also addresses concerns regarding the City’s Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code. 7-3 The comment questions if the City’s person per household (PPH) rate of 2.45 is outdated and is an underestimation; the comment suggests that the Project will create a population increase of 326 new occupants. The comment disputes that the PPH rate and estimates Project occupancy should be higher based on anecdotal evidence.

Population changes alone, do not, in and of themselves, constitute a physical effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2, subd. (d) [CEQA does not assume that “growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment”].) The population estimate cited in the Draft EIR is based on the City’s PPH rate used for planning purposes and has little bearing, if any, on the evaluation of physical environmental effects. The projection of the number of people a project would generate is only an estimate and has limited utility because environmental impacts are primarily evaluated using a different metric based on the specific issue being evaluated.

The City’s rate of 2.45 PPH for determining population is a blended rate used by the City to determine increases in population per unit for medium/higher density residential land uses. This PPH rate is also consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR population assumptions (see Draft EIR p. ES-4).

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3259 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-48
Other rates are used to evaluate impacts for different purposes. For example, as stated on page 3.13-24 of the Draft EIR, a Water Neutral Report was prepared for the Project that assumes a higher PPH rate, as compared to the City’s PPH, to ensure a conservative calculation of water demand. It is not uncommon for an EIR to include different assumptions depending on the issue area to be evaluated. 7-4 The comment states that the Project would result in more new residents than what is analyzed in the EIR. The comment requests that the EIR evaluate impacts related to utilities, public services, and traffic based on higher population estimates.

Please see Response to Comment 7-3. Physical impacts associated with an increase in population are evaluated by analyzing increased demand for services.

The Draft EIR properly evaluated the increase in demand for each potentially impacted resource based on industry standard demand rates provided either by the City or the service provider based on the specific land use to analyze potential environmental impacts caused by the Project.

For the purposes of public services analysis, Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR uses a household size of 2.45 PPH, which as discussed above is consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR population assumptions.

For the purposes of traffic and transportation analysis, Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR does not rely on a population growth estimate, but rather daily trip rates according to the types of residential land use proposed by the Project. 7-5 This comment notes the commentor’s concern over the Project’s construction timeline.

Specifically, the commenter disputes that, because of the anticipated length of the construction timeline, effects related to dust, noise, and traffic would be greater to current residents over time; the commenter also argues that standards for these environmental considerations will be made more stringent as construction progresses.

As described in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description, buildout of the Project would occur based on market conditions and timeliness of obtaining future approvals and construction permits. At this time the Project is only requesting approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map which does not include the issuance of construction permits. As noted in the Project Description, while the timeline of future construction is not finalized, the Draft EIR conservatively relies on a 6+ year construction period for analysis purposes. The associated air quality, noise and traffic impacts associated with short-term construction activities on both adjacent residences as well as phases of the Project are evaluated in the respective sections. 7-6 The comment states concern about the Project’s aesthetic impact on scenic views around St. Helena. The comment also states the Project will have a negative impact on open space in the community and generally result in undesirable aesthetic impacts.

The Project’s impacts on views and change in visual character of the Project site is addressed in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR, Aesthetics/Visual Resources. The analysis Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3260 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-49
in Section 3.1 reviews Project compliance with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Design Review requirements and also provides visual simulations of the Proposed Project to illustrate how development of the Project would change views of the Project site. As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, if the Project is approved the City would require additional subsequent discretionary approvals, including Design Review.

Based on the analysis in the Draft EIR, all Aesthetic impacts would be less than significant with the exception of an increase in lighting that would result in a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires lighting design guidelines be developed for the Project to minimize glare and light spillover would reduce that impact to less than significant.

The commenter’s opinion that the Project would result in undesirable impacts is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. 7-7 The comment summarizes other comments described above (see comments 7-2 through 7-6), involving open space, the proposed construction timeline, and estimations related to population growth.

Please see Responses to Comments 7-2 through 7-6.
7-8 The comment expresses general opposition to the Project as currently proposed.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3261 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-50

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3262 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-51
COMMENT LETTER 8
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3263 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-52

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3264 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-53
Response to Letter 8
Trevor Barlow
November 6, 2021
8-1 The comment states general opposition to the Project and asks that the Project be denied.

The comment’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
8-2 The comment raises concerns related to emergency evacuation and access in the event of a fire or earthquake.

Please see Master Response 1 that addresses concerns associated with emergency evacuation.
8-3 The comment raises concerns regarding the City’s water supply and Project’s tax revenue generation. The commenter is concerned that the Project will worsen current drought conditions and that tax revenue generated by the Project would not cover future City expenses.

The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, in response to the comment’s concern related to the City’s water supply, please see Master Response 2. 8-4 The comment states general opposition to the Project and asks that the Project be denied.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3265 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-54

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3266 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-55
COMMENT LETTER 9
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3267 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-56
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3268 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-57
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3269 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-58

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3270 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-59
Response to Letter 9
Thomas and Margot Belt
October 28, 2021
9-1 The comment expresses opposition to the Project. The commenter asserts a lack of available water to serve the Project and existing water customers.

The commenter’s opposition to the Project is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Regarding available water supplies to serve the Project, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the ability of the City to serve the Project as well as existing water customers.
9-2 The comment is referencing the City’s Capital Improvement Projects specific to water projects to be undertaken by the City and states that absent these improvements the City will not be able to supply the Project’s water needs.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. No further response is required; however, please see Master Response 2 that addresses City water infrastructure projects. 9-3 The comment notes that the City has plans to build a new sewage treatment plant to provide tertiary treated water for landscaping, but completion of this project is “years away.”
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. No further response is required; however, please see Master Response 2 that addresses water supply.
9-4 The comment clarifies opposition to the Project is due to reliance on information from past general plans and expressed concern that the Draft EIR does not address climate change.

The Draft EIR explains on page 2-12 in Chapter 2, Project Description that the Project site was designated for residential development starting in the 1975 General Plan, as Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the 1993 General Plan and is designated MDR in the City’s recently adopted General Plan Update 2040. Because the Project’s Tentative Subdivision Map application was first submitted in September 2010 and deemed complete by the City in 2011, this EIR is required to reference the 1993 General Plan as the applicable general plan for the purposes of evaluating the Proposed Project, since this version of the plan was in effect in 2011. This EIR also evaluates consistency with the City’s current General Plan (adopted 2019) for informational and consistency purposes.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3271 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-60
It is important to note that the EIR only references applicable goals and policies from the 1993 General Plan. The analysis of Project impacts is based on current technical reports, planning documents, and applicable federal, state and local requirements and laws aimed at addressing pre-and post-development impacts. In addition, changes to the existing environmental condition are also evaluated to determine potential Project impacts.

The effects of climate change are evaluated in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases and the analysis references current state and local plans and not the 1993 General Plan (which does not address climate change). As noted in the section, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are evaluated on a cumulative level because it is not possible to evaluate GHG impacts on an individual project basis. Global climate change is inherently a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. The Draft EIR addresses the Project’s contribution to GHGs which is a leading factor contributing to global climate change.
9-5 The comment is referring to requirements the City imposed in 2020 to conserve water for residential uses and notes the City may impose even stricter water restrictions in the future.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to provide water to serve the Project as well as existing City residences.
9-6 The comment notes that the City of St. Helena is the only jurisdiction that has imposed mandatory water conservation within Napa County and infers this is because the City does not have adequate water supplies during critically dry years.

The comment goes on to state the City does not have adequate water to serve its current residents or the Project.

Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the ability of the City to provide water to serve the Project as well as existing City residences. 9-7 The comment asks where the agricultural water well is located on the Project site, stating that if a well does not exist, a new well could not be drilled for residential or commercial use.

The location of the existing well is described on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description and also shown as Parcel B on the proposed Tentative Map. The location of the existing well is also noted on page 3.9-19 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality and on page 3.13-1 in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems. The Project does not include drilling a new well.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3272 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-61
9-8 The comment is citing sections of the City’s Municipal Code that address requirements for drilling a new well in the City.

The Project is not proposing to drill a new well to serve the water needs of new residential units. The Project is proposing to use the existing agricultural well to irrigate the Project’s public and private landscaping. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. 9-9 The comment notes water to serve the Project would come, in part, from the City’s Stone Bridge Complex groundwater wells which is currently being litigated by Water Audit California. The comment goes on to state if the existing onsite well is reactivated to serve the Project it could add to further loss of water in the Napa River.

The Project’s onsite well would draw from the deeper volcanic aquifer, below the Napa Valley alluvium, which is not considered hydraulically connected to the Napa River (see Appendix L of the Draft EIR). Therefore, the proposed pumping from this well is not likely to have any direct effect on surface flow in Napa River. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
9-10 The comment ssuggests that the outcome of the Water Audit litigation could limit the amount of water the City receives from the Stonebridge Complex wells because of potential impacts from the well’s (assuming the commenter is referring the Stonebridge Complex wells) on protected species.

The comment is speculating what the outcome of the Water Audit litigation could be on the City and the Project. The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. 9-11 The comment expresses an opinion that the Project’s water demand is significantly underestimated because the analysis relied on compliance with the State’s Green Building Guidelines or CalGreen.

The City requires all new development projects to comply with its Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code that establishes the process to follow to quantify the amount of water a project would require and how this increase in demand would be offset. Because all new development in the state is required to comply with CalGreen water demand is reduced due to the installation of low flow fixtures and other water-conserving requirements. The City has worked with the Project applicant’s engineers to ensure the Project’s water demand is reasonable, accurate and supported by substantial evidence.
9-12 The comment indicates that there is no follow up by City staff to ensure ongoing compliance with California’s Green Building Guidelines to ensure occupants comply with the requirements.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3273 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-62
The California Green Building Guidelines or CalGreen (Title 24) includes mandatory requirements for new residential construction including allowable flow rate for faucets and showerheads. The City requires all new development to install water meters, which allows the City to track water usage. The City will ensure compliance with the CalGreen Building Code through inspections that occur throughout Project construction. 9-13 The comment addresses the requirement of the City’s Water Neutral Policy (Chapter

13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code) for an applicant to either pay a fee or retrofit existing residences to offset the increase in demand for water and asks how long it would take to retrofit homes or if there are even enough homes left that need water upgrades.

Please see Master Response 2, which describes options available to retrofit existing residences or facilities to achieve water neutrality.
9-14 The comment questions if the City’s Water Neutral Policy (Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code) requirements can work without the City’s enforcement of the policy and goes on to say the “term falls significantly short of accomplishing its intended purpose.”
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.

However, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.
9-15 The comment notes the Project is proposed within a flood zone where water damage is possible and requests that if the Project is approved the City require, as a condition of approval, that the City be indemnified for any future losses to the Project in the event of a flood event.

Flooding and flood hazards are addressed in detail in the Draft EIR in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. As shown on Figure 3.9-2, the Project site is not within a Special Flood Hazard Areas but is mapped as being in an area with reduced flood risk due to a levee (FEMA 2012). By being within an area of reduced risk due to levee, the Project site is considered mapped within the 500-year flood zone (FEMA 2012).

Please see Master Response 3 that addresses concerns regarding the levee.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3274 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-63
COMMENT LETTER 10
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3275 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-64

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3276 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-65
Response to Letter 10
Pierre Birebent
November 13, 2021
10-1 The comment states a general concern regarding potential development of the property.

The comment’s concern is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
10-2 The commenter states that the Project will involve major construction and states general concerns related to traffic congestion and water shortage.

The comment raises a concern related to traffic congestion. Transportation impacts are analyzed in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR. The operational aspects of the Proposed Project that contribute to delay and congestion on local roadways is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The Transportation section analyzes transportation impacts related to consistency with plans or policies addressing the City’s circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), any potential hazardous design elements, and emergency access. Please see Master Response 1 that addresses emergency access.

The Draft EIR concludes that the Project would have less-than-significant impacts to these areas except for an increase in VMT. As described in Section 3.14, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on VMT because the Project’s VMT would be 15.2% higher than the Citywide VMT per capita rate and because there are no feasible mitigation measures available to substantially reduce or lessen the impact. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project is currently only requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map at this time. Therefore, as noted on page 2-30, the applicant has not yet prepared a construction phasing plan. It is assumed once the applicant obtains all the remaining approvals site clearing, grading and installation of the backbone infrastructure would be the first phase.

Absent specific construction phasing plans the Draft EIR analysis assumed buildout of the Project would occur over a 6-year period. However, buildout could take longer dependent on market conditions and a host of other factors.

The comment also raises concern related to water supply; please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water. 10-3 The comment expresses general opposition to the Project.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3277 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-66
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3278 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-67
COMMENT LETTER 11
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3279 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-68

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3280 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-69
Response to Letter 11
Earl and Trudy Bouligny
October 10, 2021
11-1 The comment claims that the Project was “soundly rejected six years ago,” and that it should not be approved. The comment also notes general concerns related to potential flooding, water supply, and traffic.

The comment is noted and has also been forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code and Master Response 3 that addresses concerns associated with the levee and flooding.

Traffic concerns are addressed in Responses to Comment 10-2.

Regarding the earlier public review of the Project, it is noted that the Project was considered by the St. Helena Planning Commission on September 17, 2013, at which time the hearing was continued to a date not certain. The Project was neither approved nor denied, and remains an active application. 11-2 The comment expresses general opposition to the Project and asks that the Project be denied.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3281 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-70

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3282 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-71
COMMENT LETTER 12
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3283 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-72

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3284 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-73
Response to Letter 12
Karen and Kevin Bradley
November 30, 2021
12-1 The comment requests the commenters’ names to be added to the Vineyard Valley comment letter for the Project.

It is not clear from the comment, but it is assumed the commenter is requesting their names be added to the letter submitted by the Vineyard Valley Managing Partners, see Letter 111. The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3285 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-74

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3286 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-75
COMMENT LETTER 13
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3287 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-76

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3288 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-77
Response to Letter 13
Greg Brown
November 2, 2021
13-1 The comment states that the Project could cause water use and traffic impacts; the comment also asserts that the Project should not be approved given the condition of the City’s streets and water supply.

The commenter’s general concerns regarding water and traffic is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter

13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3289 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-78

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3290 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-79
COMMENT LETTER 14
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3291 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-80
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3292 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-81
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3293 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-82
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3294 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-83
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3295 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-84

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3296 of 4422 ends

4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-85
Response to Letter 14
Ethan Brown
November 29, 2021
14-1 The commenter notes that they live near the Project site and frequently uses the trail adjacent to the site.

This comment is an introduction to comments that follow. The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
14-2 The comment notes that the Draft EIR focuses on impacts to special-status wildlife and describes their observations of common wildlife species using the Project site, notably bats, hawks, great blue heron, and black-crowned night heron. The comment requests analysis of cumulative effects of development on birds and other animals that use the Project site and vicinity.

The Draft EIR analyzes impacts to biological resources using the thresholds of significance listed on page 3.4-42. These thresholds, which are taken from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, do focus the analysis on special-status species due to their sensitivity to impacts. However, the thresholds do include interference with movement of native resident wildlife species and migratory corridors, regardless of the species status. The Draft EIR identifies a significant impact to migratory corridors and potential nursery sites within the adjacent riparian corridor and provides mitigation (BIO-5 and AES-1) to reduce the impact to less than significant. The thresholds also consider any conflicts with any local policies; however, there are no local policies that provide protections for non-special-status wildlife.

The Draft EIR analyzes impacts to bat and bird species (DEIR pp. 3.4-46 through

3.4-47) and includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to bat species (BIO-1) and bird species (BIO-2). These analyses and mitigation measures apply to both special-status and non-special-status species. The Draft EIR also analyzes cumulative impacts of the project (DEIR p. 3.4-51), finding that the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant due to the relatively low habitat value of the Project site and the availability of similar or better habitat in the vicinity.
14-3 The comment describes observations of Canada geese foraging on the Project site within the remnant grassland. The comment asserts that the Napa Valley is a significant migratory corridor for Canada geese.

Agenda Item #5.8.

Page 3297 of 4422 ends

St. Helena City CouncilMay 1, 2023

St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023