20260903-agenda-item-5a-exhibit-a-of-attachment-1-ceqa-environmental-checklist — Waterford City Council, September 3, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

R-1 and R-2
Residential
R-3 and above
Multifamily
Residential
Commercial and
Industrial
Daily 7:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. 75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA
Weekends 9:00a.m. to
8:00p.m. and legal holidays
60 65 70
ii. Stationary Equipment. Maximum sound levels for repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operation (periods of ten days or more per month) of stationary equipment:

R-1 and R-2
Residential
R-3 and above
Multifamily
Residential
Commercial and
Industrial
Daily 7:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Weekends 9:00a.m. to
8:00p.m. and legal holidays
50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA
H. Vibration. Operating or permitting the operation of any device which creates a vibration which annoys or disturbs at least two or more reasonable persons of normal sensitivity who reside in separate residences (including apartments and condominiums) at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at least one hundred fifty feet (fortysix meters) from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way; K. Domestic power tools, machinery, heating, venting, or air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment.

1. Operating or permitting the operation of any mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool between ten p.m. and seven a.m. on NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 32
weekdays (or eight p.m. and nine a.m. on weekends and legal holidays) so as to create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line; and

2. Any motor, machinery, or pump, such as swimming pool or HVAC equipment and the like, installed or replaced after October 11, 1984, shall be sufficiently enclosed or muffled and maintained so as not to create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line;

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following questions correspond to the questions in the Noise section of the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
• Generation of a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; and/or • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Temporary Construction Noise Impacts
Determining "substantial increases" in construction noise depends on factors such as duration, time of occurrence, whether the noise source is constant or impulsive, and overall changes in decibel levels. According to the City of Waterford noise ordinance, construction activities that operate between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. (except Saturday and Sunday and State or federal holidays, when the prohibited time shall be before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.) and cause disturbances are prohibited and considered significant impacts since they are violations of the Municipal Code limits.

Operational Noise Impacts
Based on the City of Waterford’s Vision 2025 General Plan Update Program EIR, a project will have a significant impact on noise if it would result in any of the following:
• New development of noise-sensitive land uses located in an area exposed to existing or projected future levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed 65 dB Ldn in outdoor activity areas or 45 dB Ldn in interior spaces. • Noise created by new transportation noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, that cannot be mitigated so as not to exceed 65 dB Ldn within outdoor activity areas and 45 dB Ldn within interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive land uses. • New development of noise-sensitive land uses located in an area where the noise level from existing stationary noise sources exceeds the noise level standards of the following Table 3.12.1.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 26
For non-noise sensitive land uses, Figure 11.5 of the Waterford Vision 2025 General Plan Noise Chapter provides noise standards for other land uses including office, commercial and industrial uses. This Figure provides acceptable levels of exterior noise levels of 65 dBA Ldn for offices, 70 dBA Ldn for commercial and industrial uses.

Table 3.12.1
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE-STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES1 Daytime
(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Hourly Leq, dB 55 50
Maximum level, dB 75 70
1As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures.

Vibration Impacts
The Noise Element provides the following threshold.

For construction activities involving high-powered vibratory tools or pile driving within 200 feet of an existing structure, demonstrate that project construction would not exceed the Caltrans construction vibration thresholds to ensure that no damage to sensitive structures would occur.

The City’s Noise Element has qualitative standards for vibration-induced annoyance but no quantitative standards for annoyance or structural damage. Consequent, published thresholds from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will be used for vibration damage as shown in Table 5. The threshold for “Older residential structures” is 0.3 peak particle velocity (ppv) inch per second (in/sec) is selected for analysis. This threshold represents the adjacent uses to the Project site.

TABLE 5: VIBRATION DAMAGE THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Structure and Condition
Maximum ppv (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 32
ppv: peak particle velocity; in/sec: inch(es) per second Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls.

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-andseat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans 2020.

The Caltrans vibration annoyance potential guideline thresholds are shown in Table 6. As shown in this Table, the strongly perceptible threshold is 0.1 ppv. These thresholds are used to assess the potential for a significant vibration impact for human annoyance. Annoyance is evaluated within occupied buildings.

TABLE 6: VIBRATION ANNOYANCE CRITERIA
Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
ppv: peak particle velocity; in/sec: inch(es) per second Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls.

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans 2020.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following questions correspond to the questions in the Noise section of the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Generation of a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
Construction Noise
The development of the proposed Project would entail construction activities which include noise generated from grading/excavation and building construction activities. Local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of Project-related construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Construction noise levels reported in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual and the Federal Highway Administration’s NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 28
(FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) were used to quantify noise levels from Project related construction activities. The equipment used within the RCNM are based on the estimates used within the air quality computer modeling. Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by equipment that produces the highest noise levels.

Construction noise levels for each generalized construction phase (ground clearing, excavation, foundation construction, building construction, paving, and site cleanup) are based on a typical construction equipment mix for an industrial project and do not include use of atypical, very loud, and vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., pile drivers).

The degree to which noise-sensitive receptors are affected by construction activities depends heavily on their proximity. While construction activities would occur at various locations within each Project phase, noise was assessed from the center of each construction phase area consistent with the General Assessment methodology adopted by the FTA. Estimated noise levels attributable to the development of the proposed Project are shown for each construction phase in Tables 7 and 8, and calculations are included in the Attachment B, Noise Calculations.

TABLE 7: PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE USES Construction Phase
Noise Levels (Leq dBA)
Residents to
the North of the
Project site
Residents to
the East of the
Project site
Residents to
the South of the
Project site
Residents to
the West of the
Project site
1,000 feet
away
2,360 feet
away
400 feet away 1,000 feet
away
Site Preparation 65 57 73 65
Grading 65 58 73 65
Building Construction 62 54 70 62
Paving 65 58 73 65
Architectural Coating 54 47 62 54
Maximum Construction Noise 65 58 73 65
FTA Construction Criterion 80 80 80 80
Exceeds Threshold No No No No
Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures.

Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 32
TABLE 8: PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE USES Construction Phase
Noise Levels (Leq dBA)
Residents to
the North of the
Project site
Residents to
the East of the
Project site
Residents to
the South of the
Project site
Residents to
the West of the
Project site
650 feet away 1,790 feet away 1,225 feet away 1,625 feet away
Site Preparation 68 60 63 60
Grading 69 60 63 61
Building Construction 66 57 60 58
Paving 69 60 63 61
Architectural Coating 58 49 52 50
Maximum Construction Noise 69 60 63 61
FTA Construction Criterion 80 80 80 80
Exceeds Threshold No No No No
Leq dBA: Average noise energy level; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet Note: Noise levels from construction activities do not take into account attenuation provided by intervening structures.

Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model.

Tables 7 – 8 show the average noise levels of construction noise levels attributable to the Project based on an assessment distance at the center of the site. Average noise levels represent the noise exposure to sensitive uses based on the distance to the center of all Project components. Noise levels from construction equipment would be less than the 80 dBA noise criterion developed by the FTA for construction noise. This is due to the large project site and the large distance between offsite noise sensitive uses and the average location of construction vehicles.

Traffic volumes related to construction workers and truck trips needed for delivery of equipment and building materials. The amount of construction related traffic would be relatively small with less than 100 one-way trips distributed throughout the day based on estimates of worker and truck trips from the CalEEMod model. This low quantity of vehicle trips would not result in a substantial magnitude of noise along local roadways. In addition, construction traffic would be limited to the allowed hours of construction activity during the day when people are least sensitive to noise and would cease after the construction phase is completed.

While noise from construction activities on-site would be clearly audible above the existing ambient noise environment but would occur during the least noise-sensitive portions of the day as per Municipal Code Section §8.22.040.G Construction or Demolition and also be less than the construction noise thresholds. In addition, construction would be generally located away from offsite noise sensitive uses due to the large size of the Project site. Consequently, noise associated with Project-related construction would not result in significant impacts and no mitigation is required.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 30
Operations Phase Noise
The operations phase of the Project would involve noise generation from stationary and mobile noise sources. Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed Project would include, but not limited to, mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units); landscape maintenance equipment; refuse collection, vehicles on the local internal roadway; and general residential activities. The City of Waterford’s Noise Element and Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from sources on private property by specifying noise levels that cannot be exceeded.

HVAC units and other stationary equipment would be selected and installed to comply with the City of Waterford’s Section §8.22.040.K of the Noise Ordinance. The City considers compliance with these noise limits to result in acceptable levels of noise. Compliance with the City’s noise limits would minimize these impacts to less than significant levels.

Noise generated by vehicle travel along local roadways within the Project site would generally be from light passenger vehicles due to the nature of residential uses. These vehicle trips would be distributed over the large Project area and would occur within the internal roadways. Due to the low magnitude of passenger vehicles, infrequency of vehicle trips, and distribution throughout the Project site, onsite noise levels attributable to the Project’s traffic volumes and parking activities would result in less than significant noise impacts. Noise from landscape maintenance, vehicles, and residential activities would be similar to noise currently occurring in other residential land uses. Noise from landscaping activities are addressed under Municipal Code Section § 8.22.040 Prohibited Acts. Compliance with these requirements would result in less than significant noise impacts. Noise impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Operation of the proposed Project would generate traffic along roadways in the Project vicinity.

Project-generated trips would use Vineyard Road, Tim Bell Road, Yosemite Boulevard, El Pomar Avenue and other local roadways. The proposed Project would generate 3,986 trips per day with 300 AM peak hour trips and 403 PM peak hour trips (The Narra Company 2025). The corresponding increase in off-site traffic noise would range from 0.0 to 13.9 dBA for the analyzed roadway segments. The large increase in noise levels along Vineyard Road and Tim Bell Road is due to the relatively undeveloped nature of land uses along those roadways. The City’s Vision 2025 General Plan Update Program EIR recognizes that new developments in agrarian or undeveloped areas may result in substantial increases in traffic noise levels along local roadways.

As such, the City has adopted significance thresholds based on the noise sensitivity of land uses.

Table 9, Operations Traffic Noise, depict the noise increase from the proposed Project. Thus, the traffic noise increases are below the City’s exterior noise threshold and would also not be perceptible or substantial. The impact on traffic noise levels would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 32
TABLE 9 OPERATIONS TRAFFIC NOISE
Noise Sensitive Receptors No Project
(dBA CNEL)
With
Project
(dBA CNEL)
Project
Increase
(dBA CNEL)
City Noise
Threshold
(dBA CNEL)
Exceeds
Threshold?
Vineyard Road
(East of Tim Bell Road) 46.5 60.4 13.9 65 No
Tim Bell Road
(North of Vineyard Road) 58.4 58.7 0.2 65 No
Tim Bell Road
(South of Vineyard Road) 59.8 62.4 2.6 65 No
Tim Bell Road
(South of Bentley Street) 56.9 57.6 0.8 65 No
Yosemite Boulevard
(West of F Street / Oakdale Waterford
Hwy)

65.5 66.4 0.9 70 No
Yosemite Boulevard
(Between F Street / Oakdale Waterford
Hwy and Tim Bell Road)

66.0 66.0 0.1 70 No
Yosemite Boulevard
(East of Tim Bell Road) 68.1 68.2 0.1 70 No
El Pomar Avenue
(West of Tim Bell Road) 52.4 53.3 0.9 65 No
El Pomar Avenue
(East of Tim Bell Road) 44.4 44.4 0.0 65 No
Source: FHWA RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.

Vibration Impacts
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; The proposed Project would not generate or expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration from the construction phase with the implementation of mitigation measures. Pile driving, blasting, and vibratory rollers are generally the sources of the most severe vibration during construction. Neither pile driving nor blasting would be used during Project construction. Conventional construction equipment would be used for grading and building construction activities.

Table 10 summarizes typical vibration levels measured during construction activities for various vibration-inducing pieces of equipment.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 32
TABLE 10 VIBRATION LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment ppv at 25 ft (in/sec)
Pile driver (impact)
upper range 1.518
typical 0.644
Pile driver (sonic)
upper range 0.734
typical 0.170
Vibratory roller 0.210
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small bulldozer 0.003
ppv: peak particle velocity; ft: feet; in/sec: inches per second.

Source: Caltrans 2020; FTA 2018.

Grading, and construction would occur up to the property lines and, as noted above, some land uses are relatively close to the property lines. Table 11 shows the vibration annoyance criteria from construction-generated vibration activities proposed at the Project site and the Project related vibration level relative to residences near the Project site.

TABLE 11 VIBRATION ANNOYANCE ASSESSMENT AT NEAREST USES Equipment
Vibration Level (ppv)
Nearest
Building to the
North of the
Project Site
Nearest
Building to the
East of the
Project Site
Nearest
Building to the
South of the
Project Site
Nearest
Building to the
West of the
Project Site
60 feet away 45 feet away 170 feet away 30 feet away
Large bulldozer 0.024 0.04 0.01 0.07
Small bulldozer 0.020 0.00 0.00 0.06
Loaded trucks 0.001 0.03 0.00 0.00
Maximum 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.07
Annoyance Criteria 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Exceeds Annoyance Criteria? No No No No
ppv: Peak Particle Velocity
Source: FTA (Calculations can be found in Attachment B).

As shown in Table 11, vibration decibel levels would exceed the criteria threshold when construction activities occur under maximum (i.e., closest to the receptor) exposure conditions.

Because vibration generated by construction equipment would be below the FTA’s annoyance criteria, impacts for vibration annoyance at the nearest sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 32
Table 12, Structural Damage Criteria at Sensitive Uses, shows the peak particle velocity levels (ppv) relative to structural damage to sensitive uses from vibration activities.

TABLE 12 BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AT NEAREST USES
Equipment
Vibration Levels (ppv)
Nearest
Building to the
North of the
Project Site
Nearest
Building to the
East of the
Project Site
Nearest Building
to the South of
the Project Site
Nearest Building
to the West of
the Project Site
60 feet away 45 feet away 170 feet away 30 feet away
Large bulldozer 0.024 0.04 0.01 0.07
Small bulldozer 0.020 0.00 0.00 0.06
Loaded trucks 0.001 0.03 0.00 0.00
Maximum 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.07
Building Damage Criteria 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Exceeds Building Damage
Criteria?
No No No No
ppv: peak particle velocity; Max: maximum; avg: average; ft: feet Source: FTA (Calculations can be found in Attachment B).

As shown in Table 12, all ppv levels would be below the building damage threshold at the nearest offsite buildings. As such, impacts related to the potential for cosmetic building damage would be less than significant.

Aircraft Noise Exposure
• For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The Project site is not located vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the Project site is the Modesto City-County Airport which is located approximately 11 miles to the west. In addition, the Project involves the development of land uses which are not considered to be noise sensitive. Therefore, it would not result in exposure of people residing or working the in the Project area to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 34

REPORT PREPARERS
This document was prepared by De Novo Planning Group, Inc. under the direction of the City of Waterford. De Novo Planning Group staff participating in document preparation included the following:
• Tin Cheung, Principal Scientist
• Josh Smith, Senior Planner

REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020 (April). Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgmapr2020-a11y.pdf California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013a (September) Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/noise-vibration.

Federal Transit Administration. 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Waterford, City. Code of Ordinances. 2025. https://ecode360.com/WA5030 Waterford, City. General Plan. 2007. https://www.cityofwaterford.org/v5/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/General-Plan-Final.pdf NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 32
This page left intentionally blank.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 36
Appendix 1 – Construction Noise and Vibration Calculations:

FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) for Building Demolition General Assessment
North East South West
Distance from Source to Receptor 1000 2360 400 1000
Demolition 0 0 0 0
Site Preparation 65 57 73 65
Grading 65 58 73 65
Building Construction 62 54 70 62
Paving 65 58 73 65
Architectural Coating 54 47 62 54
Maximum Construction Noise 65 58 73 65
FTA Construction Criterion 80 80 80 80
Exceeds Threshold No No No No
FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) for Building Demolition General Assessment
North East South West
Distance from Source to Receptor 650 1790 1225 1625
Demolition 0 0 0 0
Site Preparation 68 60 63 60
Grading 69 60 63 61
Building Construction 66 57 60 58
Paving 69 60 63 61
Architectural Coating 58 49 52 50
Maximum Construction Noise 69 60 63 61
FTA Construction Criterion 80 80 80 80
Exceeds Threshold No No No No
NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 32
This page left intentionally blank.

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT – HIGHLAND POINTE December 2025 PAGE 38
Appendix 2 – Parking and Traffic Noise Modeling:

Traffic Noise Summary
Existing
Future No
Project
With
Project Existing
Future No
Project
Future With
Project
Project
Only
Project +
Cumulative
70 dBA CNEL
65 dBA CNEL
60 dBA CNEL
Vineyard Road (East of Tim Bell Road) 80 100 4,086 45.5 46.5 60.4 13.9 14.9 0 0 1 Tim Bell Road (North of Vineyard Road) 1,600 2,000 2,200 57.5 58.4 58.7 0.2 1.2 1 5 14 Tim Bell Road (South of Vineyard Road) 2,200 2,750 6,536 58.8 59.8 62.4 2.6 3.6 2 6 20 Tim Bell Road (South of Bentley Street) 1,100 1,400 1,854 55.8 56.9 57.6 0.8 1.8 1 3 10 Yosemite Boulevard (West of F Street / Oakdale Waterford Hwy) 7,900 9,800 12,790 64.6 65.5 66.4 0.9 1.8 16 50 158 Yosemite Boulevard (Betweent F Street / Oakdale Waterford Hwy and Tim Bell Road) 7,200 8,950 9,150 65.0 66.0 66.0 0.1 1.0 14 45 143 Yosemite Boulevard (East of Tim Bell Road) 6,300 7,850 8,050 67.1 68.1 68.2 0.1 1.0 23 74 233 El Pomar Avenue (West of Tim Bell Road) 400 500 700 51.4 52.4 53.3 0.9 1.9 0 1 4 El Pomar Avenue (East of Tim Bell Road) 60 80 80 43.2 44.4 44.4 0.0 1.3 0 0 1 Daily Traffic Volumes Noise Level at Center Line (CNEL) Noise Increase

ROADWAY SEGMENT
Existing Conditions Distance to Noise
Contour (ft)

HIGHLAND POINTE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Waterford PAGE 118

APPENDIX D

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT

ANALYSIS REPORT

FOR THE HIGHLAND POINTE PROJECT

ON VINEYARD ROAD
IN

WATERFORD, CA
Prepared for
De Novo Planning Group
City of Waterford
Prepared by
March 23, 2026
Table of Contents
I. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Project Vehicle Trip Generation........................................................................................................ 1 III. Senate Bill 743 and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ................................................................... 4 IV. Vehicle Miles Traveled Methodology .............................................................................................. 6 V. Highland Pointe Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis ...................................................................... 7 VI. VMT Analysis Conclusions................................................................................................................... 8 VII. Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Methodology............................................................. 9 VIII. Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions ..............................................10 IX. Traffic Volume Forecasting – Cumulative No Project Conditions......................................12 X. Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions .......................................12 XI. Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Methodology ..............................................14 XII. Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions .................................15 XIII. Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions...........................16 XIV. Transportation Impact Analysis – Conclusions and Recommendations.........................17 Technical Appendices
Appendix A........................ Existing Conditions – Synchro 12 Input Data – AM Peak Hour Appendix B........................ Existing Conditions – Synchro 12 Analysis – AM Peak Hour Appendix C. ....................... Existing Conditions – Synchro 12 Input Data – PM Peak Hour Appendix D........................ Existing Conditions – Synchro 12 Analysis – PM Peak Hour Appendix E. ...............Existing + Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Input Data – AM Peak Hour Appendix F. ...............Existing + Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Analysis – AM Peak Hour Appendix G................Existing + Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Input Data – PM Peak Hour Appendix H................Existing + Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Analysis – PM Peak Hour Appendix I.........Cumulative No Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Input Data – AM Peak Hour Appendix J. ........Cumulative No Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Analysis – AM Peak Hour Appendix K........Cumulative No Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Input Data – PM Peak Hour Appendix L. .......Cumulative No Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Analysis – PM Peak Hour Appendix M. ........Cumulative + Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Input Data – AM Peak Hour Appendix N..........Cumulative + Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Analysis – AM Peak Hour Appendix O..........Cumulative + Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Input Data – PM Peak Hour Appendix P. .........Cumulative + Project Conditions – Synchro 12 Analysis – PM Peak Hour List of Tables

1. Highland Pointe Project Vehicle Trip Generation Rates ............................................................. 1

2. Highland Pointe Project ADT (24-Hour) Trip Generation Analysis........................................ 3

3. Highland Pointe Project AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Analysis ......................................... 3

4. Highland Pointe Project PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Analysis ......................................... 4

5. Highland Pointe Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis – Baseline Conditions ............ 7

6. Highland Pointe Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis – General Plan (Cumulative) Conditions............................................................................................... 8

7. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Criteria..................................................................................... 9

8. Existing versus Existing With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis – AM Peak Hour Conditions .....................................................................................................................10

9. Existing versus Existing With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis – PM Peak Hour Conditions .....................................................................................................................11

10. Cumulative No Project versus Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis - AM Peak Hour Conditions.........................................................12-13

11. Cumulative No Project versus Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis - PM Peak Hour Conditions................................................................14

12. Two-Lane Roadway Segment Level of Service (LOS) Criteria – Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume Thresholds ........................................................................15

13. Existing versus Existing With Highland Pointe Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Conditions.....................................................15

14. Cumulative No Project versus Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Conditions .................16 List of Figure

1. Highland Pointe Project – Phase 1 and 2 Land Development Plan......................................... 2 1 | Page

INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed for the proposed Highland Pointe Phase 1 and Phase 2 Project in Waterford, California. The Proposed Project would construct the following project phases:

Under Near-Term Conditions, the following phases of the Highland Pointe Project would be constructed:
• Between Year 2026 and Year 2030
o Phase 1 – 217 Single Family Dwelling Units;
o Phase 2 – 195 Single Family Dwelling Units;
o Total of 412 Single Family Dwelling Units.

Under Cumulative Conditions, the following remaining phases of the Lake Pointe Master Plan would be constructed:
• Between Year 2030 and Year 2040
o Phase 3 – 286 Single Family Dwelling Units;
o Phase 4 – 335 Single Family Dwelling Units;
o Total of 621 Single Family Dwelling Units
Therefore, the Highland Pointe Project would construct a total of 1,033 Single Family Dwelling Units, which is 573 single family dwelling units less than the approved Lake Pointe Master Plan than included 1,606 single family dwelling units under Cumulative (Buildout) Conditions.

Figure 1 presents the land development plan for Phase 1 and Phase 2 prepared by Northstar Engineering Group in Modesto, CA.

The Highland Pointe Project would be located approximately 0.68 miles (3,600 feet) north of the State Route (SR) 132 (Yosemite Boulevard) / Tim Bell Road side street stop controlled (unsignalized) intersection, and approximately 0.28 miles (1,500 feet) east of the Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road side street stop controlled (unsignalized) intersection. The Highland Pointe Phase 1 and 2 Project would encompass +/- 73.7 acres and would provide two access points to Vineyard Road.

PROJECT VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
Table 1 presents the vehicle trip generation rates that would be generated by the 412 single family dwelling units for Weekday Daily, AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour Conditions.

Table 1: Highland Pointe Project Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Land Use
(ITE Code)
Dwelling
Units
Vehicle Trip Rate1
Daily AM PM
Total In Out Total In Out Total
210 – Single Family
Detached Housing 412 9.09 0.189(27%)

0.511
(73%)

0.700
(100%)

0.577
(62%)

0.353
(38%)

0.930
(100%)
Source: 1 Vehicle Trip Rates are based on the Trip Generation Manual 12th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2025). 2 | Page
Figure 1 – Highland Pointe Project – Phases 1 and 2 Land Development Plan 3 | Page
Table 2 presents the Average Daily Vehicle Trips (24 hour) that would be generated by the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Highland Pointe Project, with 1,873 inbound and 1,873 outbound for a total of 3,746 vehicle trips.

Table 2: Highland Pointe Project
ADT (24-Hour) Trip Generation Analysis
Description Dwelling
Units
Inbound
Vehicle
Trips
(50%)
Outbound
Vehicle
Trips
(50%)
Total
Vehicle
Trips
(100%)
Phase 1 217 987 987 1,974
Phase 2 195 886 886 1,772
Total 412 1,873 1,873 3,746
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual 12th Edition (2025)
Land Use Category 210 – Single Family Detached Dwelling Units Table 3 presents the AM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Highland Pointe Project, with 78 inbound and 211 outbound for a total of 288 vehicle trips.

Table 3: Highland Pointe Project
AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Analysis
Description Dwelling
Units
Inbound
Vehicle
Trips
(50%)
Outbound
Vehicle
Trips
(50%)
Total
Vehicle
Trips
(100%)
Phase 1 217 41 111 152
Phase 2 195 37 100 137
Total 412 78 211 288
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual 12th Edition (2025)
Land Use Category 210 – Single Family Detached Dwelling Units And Table 4 presents the PM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Highland Pointe Project, with 237 inbound and 146 outbound for a total of 383 vehicle trips. 4 | Page
Table 4: Highland Pointe Project
PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Analysis
Description Dwelling
Units
Inbound
Vehicle
Trips
(50%)
Outbound
Vehicle
Trips
(50%)
Total
Vehicle
Trips
(100%)
Phase 1 217 125 77 202
Phase 2 195 112 69 181
Total 412 237 146 383
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual 12th Edition (2025)
Land Use Category 210 – Single Family Detached Dwelling Units SENATE BILL 743 AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into California State Law in 2013 and resulted in substantial changes in the way transportation impact analyses are being prepared. First, it amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects. Notably, it precludes the use of level of service (LOS) to identify significant transportation impacts in CEQA documents for land use projects, recommending instead that VMT be used as the preferred metric. On December 28, 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to add Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, which states that generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. According to 15064.3(a), “Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of 15064.3 applied statewide.

The amended CEQA Guidelines state that “generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts” and the provisions requiring the use of VMT shall apply statewide as of July 1, 2020. The amended CEQA Guidelines further state that land use “projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.”
To aid in SB 743 implementation, OPR released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) in December 2018. The Technical Advisory provides advice and recommendations to CEQA lead agencies on how to implement the SB 743 changes. This includes technical recommendations regarding the assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, VMT mitigation measures, and screening thresholds for certain land use projects. Lead agencies may consider and use these recommendations at their discretion and with the provision of substantial evidence to support alternative approaches. 5 | Page
The Technical Advisory identifies “screening thresholds” to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The Technical Advisory suggests that projects meeting one or more of the following criteria should be expected to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT:
 Small projects – projects consistent with a SCS and local general plan that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day.
 Projects near major transit stops – certain projects (residential, retail, office, or a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor.
 Affordable residential development – a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT.  Local-serving retail – local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. The Technical Advisory encourages lead agencies to decide when a project will likely be local-serving but generally acknowledges that retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional-serving. The Technical Advisory suggests lead agencies analyze whether regional-serving retail would increase or decrease VMT (i.e., not presume a less-than-significant).  Projects in low VMT areas – residential and office projects that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility) as existing development in areas with low VMT will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT.

The SB 743 VMT Thresholds for this project in Waterford is a numeric VMT threshold for residential projects.

Based on the SB 743 VMT thresholds, a residential project would result in a less significant transportation impact if the following criteria are met:
• Under existing (baseline) conditions, the residential development would generate home-based VMT per dwelling unit equal to or below 85 percent of the existing (baseline) City of Waterford average for the same housing category (single family, multi-family, or age-restricted); and • Under cumulative conditions, the residential development would generate home-based VMT per dwelling equal or below 85 percent of the cumulative City of Waterford average for the same housing category (single family, multi-family, or age-restricted).

Alternatively, the project would result in a less-than-significant transportation impact if:
• The proposed project is consistent with General Plan land use designation and allowable development thresholds for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified, and • Consistent with the City of Waterford’s projected land use growth within the project’s Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
SB 743 added section 21099 to the Public Resources Code, which states that automobile delay, as described by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment upon certification of the CEQA Guidelines by the Natural Resources Agency.
6 | Page
Since the amended CEQA Guidelines were certified in December 2018, LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA but can be used to address local transportation requirements as defined by the responsible agency (City of Waterford).

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
As part of the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Update, the StanCOG Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model was updated and improved. The TDF model is a valuable tool for preparing long-range transportation planning studies, like the RTP/SCS.

The TDF model can be used to estimate the average daily traffic volumes on all major area roads in Stanislaus County in response to planned population and employment growth, changes in transportation infrastructure, and policy assumptions. The TDF Model also provides a consistent platform to analyze different land use and transportation scenarios in developing the RTP/SCS. A TDF model is a computer program that simulates traffic levels and travel patterns for a specific geographic area.

The StanCOG model is consistent in form and function with standard travel forecasting models used in the transportation planning industry. The model includes a land-use based trip generation module, a gravity-based trip distribution model, a capacity-constrained equilibrium traffic assignment process, and a simplified mode choice component that estimates transit, walk, and bike trips and generates auto trips for drive alone, shared ride with two people, and shared ride with three or more people. The Citilabs Cube Voyager GIS based transportation planning software, which is used by all eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs and used to develop the StanCOG TDF Model. The model base year was updated from 2008 to Pre-COVID 2020 conditions and the modeling platform was changed from Cube Application and Scenario Manager to Cube Voyager.

The StanCOG TDF Cube Model includes the following improvements:
• The model is a mathematical relationship that is used to evaluate the relationship between land use, person travel behavior, and the transportation system;
• In 2022, the model was developed to reflect travel within, into/out of, and through Stanislaus County. • The model meets the guidelines when compared to observed travel behavior, • The model effectively responds to change in land use and transportation system, • The model meets State of California and Stanislaus County air quality targets; and • The model was used to evaluate the RTP/SCS and provide performance metrics, including SB 743 VMT.

The StanCOG TDF model consists of input files that summarize the area’s land uses, roadway network, travel characteristics, and other key factors. Using this data, the model performs a series of detailed calculations to determine the number of trips generated, the beginning and ending location of each trip, the mode of travel for each trip, and the route taken by the trip.

The model’s output includes projections of traffic volumes on all major roads and important metrics such as vehicle miles of travel (VMT) that are needed for emissions and air quality forecasts and environmental impact analysis.
7 | Page

HIGHLAND POINTE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
Based on the project description for the Highland Pointe Phase 1 and Phase 2 Project of 412 single-family dwelling units, the proposed development does not constitute a small project, is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop and is not a redevelopment project. Therefore, the development is not eligible to be screened out based on these criteria as defined in Senate Bill 743.

On the other hand, it should be noted that the proposed Highland Pointe Project is consistent with the City of Waterford General Plan land use designation for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified.

In addition, the existing General Plan land uses for the proposed Highland Pointe Project have been in place for almost two decades, and the project does not include any amendments to the General Plan Land Uses. Lastly, the proposed Highland Pointe Project is consistent with allowable development density under the General Plan and analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Nevertheless, because the proposed Highland Pointe Project does not screen out, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted to determine the project-generated VMT compared to both existing (baseline) VMT conditions and cumulative (General Plan) VMT conditions. Table 5 presents the established Baseline Citywide VMT and the project generated VMT under Existing (Baseline) Conditions. Under Baseline Conditions, there are approximately 2,500 single family dwelling units in the City of Waterford. With the existing mix of employment, shopping, entertainment and educational opportunities, the residents currently generate approximately 26.5 home-based vehicle miles traveled per single family household.

Highland Pointe would add 412 single family dwelling units to the City of Waterford, increasing the total number to 2,912 single family dwelling units (16.5% increase). Based on the location of the Highland Pointe Project in the north-eastern part of the City of Waterford, the Highland Pointe Project would generate approximately 27.2 vehicle miles of travel per household. This represents a 2.6% increase compared to the City of Waterford average of approximately 26.5 vehicle miles of travel per household.

Table 5: Highland Pointe Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis – Baseline Conditions City of Waterford
General Plan Land Use
City of Waterford
Average VMT
Highland Pointe
Project-Generated VMT
Compared to
City Average
Single Family Households 26.5 home-based VMT per
single family household

27.2 home-based VMT
per single family household +2.6%
Source:

StanCOG Sustainable Communities Strategy Regional Travel Demand Model l Plan Travel Demand Model (Baseline Conditions) Table 6 presents the projected Cumulative City of Waterford VMT and the project generated VMT under Cumulative Conditions. As the City of Waterford continues to grow from about 9,300 residents to over 12,000 residents, and up to 1,200 new jobs, the opportunity to have employment, shopping, entertainment, and educational opportunities will transform the day-to-day travel characteristics for the entire City. The residents of Waterford would generate approximately 23.2 home-based vehicle miles traveled per single family household.

Based on the location of the Highland Pointe Project in the north-eastern part of the City of Waterford, the Highland Pointe Project would generate approximately 23.5 vehicle miles of travel per household. This represents a 1.2% increase compared to the City of Waterford average of approximately 23.2 vehicle miles of travel per household.
8 | Page
Table 6: Highland Pointe Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis General Plan (Cumulative) Conditions
City of Waterford
General Plan Land Use
City of Waterford
Average VMT
Highland Pointe
Project-Generated VMT
Compared to City
Average
Single Family Households 23.2 home-based VMT per
single family household

23.5 home-based VMT
per single family household +1.2%
Source:

StanCOG Sustainable Communities Strategy Regional Travel Demand Model l Plan Travel Demand Model (Cumulative Conditions)

VMT ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS
The quantitative VMT analysis shows that under both Baseline and Cumulative Conditions, the Highland Point Project would not result in a 15 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled per dwelling unit when compared to City of Waterford averages. Instead, the Highland Pointe Project would result in a 2.6% project-generated daily VMT increase per household compared to the City of Waterford average under Baseline Conditions. Additionally, the Highland Pointe Project would result in a 1.2% project-generated daily VMT decrease per household compared to the City of Waterford average under Cumulative Conditions.

Nevertheless, the proposed Highland Pointe Project is consistent with the City of Waterford General Plan land use designation and allowable development density for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified, resulting in a less-than-significant transportation impact under the first criteria for the VMT threshold.

In addition, the City of Waterford has assumed the existing land use and development density for this location since these land uses were established by the City Council in 2007. The Highland Pointe Project is a small portion of the General Plan and Master Development Plan approval and is a step toward implementation of the General Plan and Master Development Plan. The growth proposed is consistent with the City’s long-standing growth assumptions in this Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). As such, implementation of the proposed Highland Pointe Project results in a less-than-significant transportation impact under the second criteria for the VMT threshold.

Therefore, the primary conclusions of the VMT analysis for the proposed Highland Pointe Project are:
• A less-than-significant transportation impact because the Highland Pointe Project is consistent with General Plan land use designation and allowable development thresholds for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified; and • A less-than-significant transportation impact because the Highland Pointe Project is Consistent with the City of Waterford’s projected land use growth within the project’s Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 9 | Page
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – METHODOLOGY
Study intersections were analyzed using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual – 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022). These methodologies were applied using Synchro 12 software which considers traffic volumes (automobiles and trucks), lane configurations, intersection control type (roundabout or traffic signal), signal timings (as applicable), and other pertinent parameters of intersection operations.

As previously noted, Level of Service (LOS) may no longer be used to identify significant transportation impacts in CEQA documents for projects. However, this analysis includes an LOS analysis to determine if the proposed Highland Pointe Project would result in deficient intersection operations per City of Waterford, Stanislaus County or California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) standards. The City of Waterford General Plan strives for LOS C or better, except where maintaining such levels of service is infeasible.

Table 7 displays the delay range associated with each LOS category for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade, from LOS A (optimal) to LOS F (unacceptable), is assigned. These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the level of comfort and convenience associated with driving a vehicle. In general, LOS A represents free-flow conditions with no congestion, and LOS F represents severe congestion and delay under stop-and-go conditions. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by all drivers. For side-street stop controlled intersection, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by the main-street left-turn or side-street movements.

Table 7: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Criteria
LOS Description
Average Delay
(Seconds/Vehicle)
at Unsignalized
Intersection
Average Delay
(Seconds/Vehicle)
at Signalized
Intersection
A Operations with very low delay for vehicles entering the intersection < 10.0 < 10.0
B Operations with low delay for vehicles entering the
intersection > 10.0 to 15.0 > 10.0 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays for vehicles entering the intersection > 15.0 to 25.0 > 20.0 to 35.0
D Operations with longer delays for vehicles entering the intersection. Many vehicles stop and queues begin to form. > 25.0 to 35.0 > 35.0 to 55.0 E
Operations with high delay for vehicles entering the
intersection. The majority of vehicles stop and long queues extend back from the intersection. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
> 35.0 to 50.0 > 55.0 to 80.0
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over-saturation. > 50.0 > 80.0
Note: LOS = Level of Service
Source: Highway Capacity Manual - Transportation Research Board, 2022 10 | Page
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS In addition to Vehicle Miles Traveled, the secondary measure analyzed for the transportation analysis was AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service for Existing (Year 2025) and Existing With Highland Pointe Project.

Table 8 presents the AM Peak Hour intersection level of service analysis for the seven (7) study intersections in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that during the morning peak hour, the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add a total of 289 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 211 outbound and 78 inbound vehicle trips.

During the morning peak hour, the addition of project-generated traffic would result in the F Street / Highman Road / SR 132 (Yosemite Blvd.) signalized study intersection continuing to operate at the identical Level of Service when compared to Existing (No Project) Conditions.

The five unsignalized study intersection will all continue to operate at LOS A, B or C conditions with the addition of project-generated traffic. And the project access intersection of Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road intersection will operate at LOS B for the westbound side-street stop controlled approach, serving 116 left-turn and 95 rightturn project-generated traffic.

Table 8: Existing versus Existing With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis – AM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection
Existing Existing With
Highland Pointe Project
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS

1. F Street / Highman Road /
State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.)
(Signalized)

28.1 C 28.9 C

2. Tim Bell Road / Baker Street /
State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.)
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP)

0.3 EB LT

14.8 NB

12.5 SB
A
C
B

1.0 EB LT

16.9 NB

13.3 SB
A
C
B

3. F Street / Bentley Street
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP) 9.3 A 9.6 A

4. Tim Bell Road / Bentley Street
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP) 7.2 A 7.9 A

5. Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP) 8.8 WB A 10.8 WB B

6. Tim Bell Road / El Pomar Avenue
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP)

8.8 EB

9.1 WB
A
A

9.1 EB

10.5 WB
A
B

7. Oakdale-Waterford Highway /
El Pomar Avenue
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP)

8.8 A 9.5 A
Notes: LOS = Level of Service based on Intersection Level of Service Thresholds from Highway Capacity Manual – 7th Edition
And Synchro Version 12 Transportation Impact Analysis Software 11 | Page
Table 9 presents the PM Peak Hour intersection level of service analysis for the seven (7) study intersections in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that during the evening peak hour, the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add a total of 383 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 146 outbound and 237 inbound vehicle trips.

During the evening peak hour, the addition of project-generated traffic would result in the F Street / Highman Road / SR 132 (Yosemite Blvd.) signalized study intersection continuing to operate at the identical Level of Service when compared to Existing (No Project) Conditions.

The five unsignalized study intersection will all continue to operate at LOS A, B or C conditions with the addition of project-generated traffic. And the project access intersection of Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road intersection will operate at LOS B for the westbound side-street stop controlled approach, serving 88 left-turn and 58 rightturn project-generated traffic.

Table 9: Existing versus Existing With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis – PM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection
Existing Existing With
Highland Pointe Project
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS

1. F Street / Highman Road /
State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.)
(Signalized)

28.4 C 30.7 C

2. Tim Bell Road / Baker Street /
State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.)
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP)

0.4 EB LT

16.0 NB

13.1 SB
A
C
B

1.4 EB LT

19.9 NB

12.7 SB
A
C
B

3. F Street / Bentley Street
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP) 9.9 A 10.4 B

4. Tim Bell Road / Bentley Street
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP) 7.2 A 8.2 A

5. Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP) 8.8 WB A 12.0 WB B

6. Tim Bell Road / El Pomar Avenue
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP)

8.8 EB

9.1 WB
A
A

9.1 EB

10.1 WB
A
B

7. Oakdale-Waterford Highway /
El Pomar Avenue
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP)

9.3 A 10.9 B
Notes: LOS = Level of Service based on Intersection Level of Service Thresholds from Highway Capacity Manual – 7th Edition
And Synchro Version 12 Transportation Impact Analysis Software The results of the Intersection Level of Service for Existing (Year 2025) and Existing With Highland Pointe Project showed that the Highland Pointe Project would not result in any impacts to the surrounding transportation network. All seven (7) study intersections are projected to continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service A, B, C or D under Existing With Project Conditions. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact relative to Existing With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service. 12 | Page
TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTING – CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS The Existing and Future StanCOG TDF Model developed for the RTP/SCS Update, as described in Section 4, was used to develop Cumulative Year (2047) AM and PM peak hour forecasts. The traffic forecasting adjustment procedure known as the “difference method” was used to develop Cumulative No Project AM and PM peak hour traffic forecast for the seven (7) study intersections.

For a given intersection, the Cumulative No Project AM and PM peak hour traffic forecasting procedure was calculated as follows for the study intersections:

Cumulative Year No Project AM and PM Peak Hour Forecast = Existing Volume + (Year 2047 TDF Model Volume – Existing (Base Year 2022) TDF Model Volume) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS This section presents the AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service for Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project for the seven (7) study intersections.

Table 10 presents the AM Peak Hour intersection level of service analysis for the seven (7) study intersections in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that during the morning peak hour, the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add a total of 289 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 211 outbound and 78 inbound vehicle trips.

Table 10: Cumulative No Project versus Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis – AM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection
Existing Existing With
Highland Pointe Project
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS

1. F Street / Highman Road /
State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.)
(Signalized)

28.3 C 28.3 C

2. Tim Bell Road / Baker Street /
State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.)
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP)

0.5 EB LT

15.7 NB

13.8 SB
A
C
B

1.2 EB LT

18.1 NB

15.7 SB
A
C
C
Notes: LOS = Level of Service based on Intersection Level of Service Thresholds from Highway Capacity Manual – 7th Edition
And Synchro Version 12 Transportation Impact Analysis Software 13 | Page
Table 10 (Cont.): Cumulative No Project versus Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis – AM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection
Existing Existing With
Highland Pointe Project
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS

3. F Street / Bentley Street
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP) 10.5 B 10.8 B

4. Tim Bell Road / Bentley Street
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP) 7.6 A 8.4 A

5. Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP) 9.1 WB A 11.4 WB B

6. Tim Bell Road / El Pomar Avenue
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP)

9.0 EB

9.5 WB
A
A

9.3 EB

11.1 WB
A
B

7. Oakdale-Waterford Highway /
El Pomar Avenue
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP)

10.6 B 11.8 B
Notes: LOS = Level of Service based on Intersection Level of Service Thresholds from Highway Capacity Manual – 7th Edition
And Synchro Version 12 Transportation Impact Analysis Software Table 11 presents the PM Peak Hour intersection level of service analysis for the seven (7) study intersections in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that during the evening peak hour, the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add a total of 383 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 146 outbound and 237 inbound vehicle trips.

The five unsignalized study intersection will all continue to operate at LOS A, B or C conditions with the addition of project-generated traffic. And the project access intersection of Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road intersection will operate at LOS B for the westbound side-street stop controlled approach, serving 88 left-turn and 58 rightturn project-generated traffic.

The results of the Intersection Level of Service for Cumulative and Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project showed that the Highland Pointe Project would not result in any impacts to the surrounding transportation network. All seven (7) study intersections are projected to continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service A, B, C or D under Cumulative With Project Conditions. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact relative to Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service. 14 | Page
Table 11: Cumulative No Project versus Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project Level of Service Analysis – PM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection
Existing Existing With
Highland Pointe Project
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS
Average
Delay
(seconds)
LOS

1. F Street / Highman Road /
State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.)
(Signalized)

29.9 C 31.3 C

2. Tim Bell Road / Baker Street /
State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.)
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP)

1.1 EB LT

19.4 NB

14.6 SB
A
C
B

2.0 EB LT

24.5 NB

14.8 SB
A
C
B

3. F Street / Bentley Street
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP) 12.0 B 12.8 B

4. Tim Bell Road / Bentley Street
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP) 7.6 A 8.7 A

5. Tim Bell Road / Vineyard Road
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP) 9.2 WB A 13.3 WB B

6. Tim Bell Road / El Pomar Avenue
(Unsignalized – Side Street STOP)

9.0 EB

9.9 WB
A
A

9.3 EB

11.2 WB
A
B

7. Oakdale-Waterford Highway /
El Pomar Avenue
(Unsignalized – All Way STOP)

11.7 B 16.4 C
Notes: LOS = Level of Service based on Intersection Level of Service Thresholds from Highway Capacity Manual – 7th Edition
And Synchro Version 12 Transportation Impact Analysis Software ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – METHODOLOGY Roadway segments were analyzed using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual – 7th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2022). These methodologies were applied using Average Daily Traffic (ADT) traffic volumes for typical weekday 24-hour time period and considers traffic volumes (automobiles and trucks), number of travel lanes, speed limit and presence or absence of medians and driveways.

As previously noted, Level of Service (LOS) may no longer be used to identify significant transportation impacts in CEQA documents for projects. However, this analysis also includes a segment LOS analysis to determine if the proposed Highland Pointe Project would result in deficient roadway operations and the potential need for improvements, including operational enhancements using speed surveys to adjust posted speed limits and/or capacity enhancements by widening the roadway.

Table 12 displays the ADT volume range associated with each LOS category for both 2-lane and 4-lane roadways. In general, LOS A represents free-flow conditions with no delays / congestion, and LOS E represents stop-and-go conditions and the potential need for improvements. 15 | Page
Table 12: Two-Lane Roadway Segment Level of Service (LOS) Criteria Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume Thresholds
Posted
Speed Limit LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A
30 MPH 1,800 3,600 5,600 14,600 18,900
40 MPH 4.650 7,100 8,400 18,900 18,900
Note: LOS = Level of Service
Source: Highway Capacity Manual - Transportation Research Board, 2022 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – EXISTING CONDITIONS In addition to Vehicle Miles Traveled and Intersection Operations, the third measure analyzed for the transportation analysis was ADT Roadway Segment Level of Service for Existing (Year 2025) and Existing With Highland Pointe Project.

Table 13 presents the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Roadway Segment level of service analysis for the five (5) study segments in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that during a 24-hour period, the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add a total of 3,746 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 1,873 outbound and 1,873 inbound vehicle trips.

Table 13: Existing versus Existing With Highland Pointe Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Conditions Roadway Segment
Existing
Existing With
Highland Pointe
Project
Delta
ADT
Volume LOS ADT Volume LOS ADT Volume

1. Tim Bell Road – Between Yosemite
Avenue (SR 132) and Bentley Street
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
425 A 1,719 A 1,294

2. Tim Bell Road – Between Bentley
Street and Vineyard Road
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
800 A 3,048 B 2,248

3. Tim Bell Road –Vineyard Road and
El Pomar Avenue
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
750 A 2,248 B 1,498

4. El Pomar Avenue – Between
Tim Bell Road and
Oakdale – Waterford Highway
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
700 A 2,198 B 1,498

5. Vineyard Road – Between
Tim Bell Road and
Highland Pointe Project
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
200 A 3,946 C 3,746
Notes: Level of Service based on Segment Level of Service Thresholds from Highway Capacity Manual 16 | Page
On a daily basis (24-hour), the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add between 1,294 to 2,248 vehicle trips on Tim Bell Road, with a maximum of 2,248 vehicle trips between Bentley Street and Vineyard Road and a minimum of 1,294 vehicles between Yosemite Avenue (SR 132) and Bentley Street.

On El Pomar Road, the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add 1,498 vehicle trips. And on Vineyard Road the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add 3,746 vehicle trips.

The results of the Roadway Segment Level of Service for Existing (Year 2025) and Existing With Highland Pointe Project showed that the Highland Pointe Project would not result in any impacts to the surrounding transportation network. All five (5) study roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable LOS A (1 segment), LOS B (3 segments), or LOS C (1 segment) under Existing With Project Conditions. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact relative to Existing With Project Daily (24-Hour) Roadway Segment Level of Service.

ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS –

CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
Table 13 presents the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Roadway Segment level of service analysis for the five (5) study segments in the project study area under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With Project Conditions.

The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that during a 24-hour period, the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add a total of 3,746 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 1,873 outbound and 1,873 inbound vehicle trips.

Table 13: Cumulative No Project versus Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Conditions Roadway Segment
Existing
Existing With
Highland Pointe
Project
Delta
ADT
Volume LOS ADT Volume LOS ADT Volume

1. Tim Bell Road – Between Yosemite
Avenue (SR 132) and Bentley Street
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
1,400 A 2,694 A 1,294

2. Tim Bell Road – Between Bentley
Street and Vineyard Road
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
1,550 A 3,798 C 2,248

3. Tim Bell Road –Vineyard Road and
El Pomar Avenue
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
1,550 A 3,048 B 1,498

4. El Pomar Avenue – Between
Tim Bell Road and
Oakdale – Waterford Highway
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
1,300 A 2,798 B 1,498

5. Vineyard Road – Between
Tim Bell Road and
Highland Pointe Project
(1 Lane in Each Direction)
200 A 3,946 C 3,746
Notes: LOS = Level of Service based on Segment Level of Service Thresholds from Highway Capacity Manual

17 | Page
On a daily basis (24-hour), the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add between 1,294 to 2,248 vehicle trips on Tim Bell Road, with a maximum of 2,248 vehicle trips between Bentley Street and Vineyard Road and a minimum of 1,294 vehicles between Yosemite Avenue (SR 132) and Bentley Street.

On El Pomar Road, the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add 1,498 vehicle trips. And on Vineyard Road the proposed Highland Pointe Project would add 3,746 vehicle trips.

The results of the Roadway Segment Level of Service for Cumulative No Project (Year 2047) and Cumulative With Highland Pointe Project showed that the Highland Pointe Project would not result in any impacts to the surrounding transportation network. All five (5) study roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable LOS A (1 segment), LOS B (2 segments), or LOS C (2 segments) under Cumulative With Project Conditions. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact relative to Cumulative With Project Daily (24- Hour) Roadway Segment Level of Service.

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS –

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis for the proposed Highland Pointe Project, the following are primary conclusions, and recommendations:
• Conclusion #1 - A less-than-significant transportation Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impact because the Highland Pointe Project is consistent with General Plan land use designation and allowable development thresholds for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified.
• Conclusion #2 - A less-than-significant transportation VMT impact because the Highland Pointe Project is Consistent with the City of Waterford’s projected land use growth within the project’s Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ).
• Conclusion #3 - A less than significant transportation impact relative to Existing With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service.
• Conclusion #4 - A less than significant transportation impact relative to Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service.
• Recommendation #1 – With the improvements to the F Street / Hickman Road / State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.) intersection completed in 2024, including improved travel lanes, ADA curb ramps, sidewalks and optimized traffic signalization, the Highland Pointe Project would be required to pay the City of Waterford’s traffic impact fee as part of the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program. Recommendation #1 would satisfy the requirements of Mitigation Measure 15-1 from the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan.
• Recommendation #2 – With the improvements to the F Street / Hickman Road / State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.) signalized intersection, including a protected eastbound left-turn phase, a percentage of inbound Highland Pointe project-generated traffic would use F Street to Bentley Avenue to Tim Bell Road to travel to the project instead of making a left-turn at the SR 132 / Tim Bell Road intersection. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 15.2 from the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan MND, the Highland Project should pay its fair share towards the cost of improving the SR 132 / Tim Bell Road intersection. Based on the StanCOG Travel Demand 18 | Page
Forecasting Model and the detailed analysis contained in this transportation impact study, the fair share percentage was calculated to be 35%. It should be noted that this analysis is based on technical modeling and analysis. Therefore, it is recommended that after the completion and occupancy of the Phase 1 Project (217 single-family dwelling units), a focused intersection control study be completed to determine the need, timing, and fair share contribution for improvements at the SR 132 / Tim Bell Road intersection. Recommendation #2 would satisfy the requirements of Mitigation Measures 15-2 and 15-4 from the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan. • Recommendation #3 – Project-generated traffic using the Oakdale-Waterford Highway / El Pomar Avenue intersection would increase delays and vehicle queues to the southbound and westbound approaches to this all-way stop controlled intersection. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 15.3 from the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan MND, the Highland Project should pay its fair share towards the cost of improving the Oakdale-Waterford Highway / El Pomar Avenue intersection.

Based on the StanCOG Travel Demand Forecasting Model and the detailed analysis contained in this transportation impact study, the fair share percentage was calculated to be 30%. It should be noted that this analysis is based on technical modeling and analysis. Therefore, it is recommended that after the completion and occupancy of the Phase 1 Project (217 single-family dwelling units), a focused intersection control study be completed to determine the need, timing, and fair share contribution for improvements at the Oakdale-Waterford Highway / El Pomar Avenue.

Recommendation #3 would satisfy the requirements of Mitigation Measure 15-3 from the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan.
• Conclusion #5 - A less than significant transportation impact relative to Existing With Project Daily (24-Hour) Roadway Segment Level of Service.
• Conclusion #6 - A less than significant transportation impact relative to Cumulative With Project Daily (24-Hour) Roadway Segment Level of Service.
• Conclusion #7 – The Highland Pointe Project does not include the construction of the Rorabough Parkway connection to Yosemite Boulevard (SR 132) or development of the Church Planned Development. Therefore, the Highland Pointe Project is not required to satisfy Mitigation Measures 15- 5 and 15-6 from the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan. • Recommendation #4 – Project-generated traffic would not require widening of Tim Bell Road between State Route 132 (Yosemite Blvd.) and El Pomar Avenue, with the roadway providing sufficient capacity with one (1) travel lane in each direction. In addition, the bridge over the irrigation canal does not need to be widened except for providing a sidewalk on the west side of Tim Bell Road to provide a pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk located to the south. It is recommended that after the completion and occupancy of the Phase 1 Project (217 single-family dwelling units), a focused speed study be completed on Tim Bell Road to determine if minor operational improvements, such as reducing posted speed limits or installing new all-way stop controlled intersections are needed. Recommendation #4 would satisfy the requirements of Mitigation Measure 15-7 from the Lake Pointe Master Development Plan.

Appendix A
Existing Conditions
Synchro Version 12 - Input Data
AM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 170 140 125 250 50 125 130 75 45 150 35 Future Volume (vph) 30 170 140 125 250 50 125 130 75 45 150 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 250 0 165 165 175 175
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.932 0.975 0.850 0.972
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1659 0 1736 1713 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1776 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1659 0 1736 1713 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1776 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 34 9 136 10
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 597 497 1852 980
Travel Time (s) 8.1 6.8 36.1 19.1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 33 185 152 136 272 54 136 141 82 49 163 38 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 337 0 136 326 0 136 141 82 49 201 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 20.0 45.0 21.0 49.0 49.0 14.0 42.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 30.8% 16.7% 37.5% 17.5% 40.8% 40.8% 11.7% 35.0% Maximum Green (s) 7.5 32.5 15.5 40.5 16.5 44.5 44.5 9.5 37.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 3
Act Effct Green (s) 6.8 33.9 12.1 44.1 12.2 27.1 27.1 7.8 17.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.36 0.13 0.47 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.55 0.61 0.40 0.60 0.27 0.15 0.34 0.59
Control Delay (s/veh) 52.3 29.0 54.0 22.5 53.3 29.0 1.2 52.2 40.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 52.3 29.0 54.0 22.5 53.3 29.0 1.2 52.2 40.8

LOS DC DC DCADD
Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.0 31.7 31.9 43.0
Approach LOS CCCD
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 94.3
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.61
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 33.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) Phasings Existing No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 20.0 45.0 21.0 49.0 49.0 14.0 42.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 30.8% 16.7% 37.5% 17.5% 40.8% 40.8% 11.7% 35.0% Maximum Green (s) 7.5 32.5 15.5 40.5 16.5 44.5 44.5 9.5 37.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 3
90th %ile Green (s) 7.5 32.5 15.5 40.5 16.5 44.0 44.0 9.5 37.0 90th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Max Ped 70th %ile Green (s) 7.5 33.0 15.0 40.5 14.9 23.9 23.9 9.3 18.3 70th %ile Term Code Max Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 50th %ile Green (s) 7.2 35.1 12.6 40.5 12.6 20.0 20.0 8.1 15.5 50th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.5 10.3 47.3 10.3 27.4 27.4 0.0 12.6 30th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Skip Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.5 7.8 44.8 7.8 21.6 21.6 0.0 9.3 10th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Skip Gap Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 94.3
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 119.5
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 99.2
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 93.8
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 83.7
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 75.4
Queues Existing No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 337 136 326 136 141 82 49 201
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.55 0.61 0.40 0.60 0.27 0.15 0.34 0.59
Control Delay (s/veh) 52.3 29.0 54.0 22.5 53.3 29.0 1.2 52.2 40.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 52.3 29.0 54.0 22.5 53.3 29.0 1.2 52.2 40.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 137 77 128 77 72 0 28 108
Queue Length 95th (ft) 59 323 169 294 167 123 6 77 182
Internal Link Dist (ft) 517 417 1772 900
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 250 165 165 175
Base Capacity (vph) 141 618 292 805 311 883 821 179 729 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.55 0.47 0.40 0.44 0.16 0.10 0.27 0.28 Intersection Summary
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 275 5 5 375 10 5 5 5 5 5 45
Future Volume (vph) 10 275 5 5 375 10 5 5 5 5 5 45
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.998 0.996 0.955 0.888
Flt Protected 0.998 0.999 0.984 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1740 0 0 1737 0 0 1717 0 0 1616 0
Flt Permitted 0.998 0.999 0.984 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1740 0 0 1737 0 0 1717 0 0 1616 0
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 497 2819 975 1700
Travel Time (s) 6.8 38.4 22.2 38.6
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 11 299 5 5 408 11 5 5 5 5 5 49
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 315 0 0 424 0 0 15 0 0 59 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 10 35 5 10 5 165 40 10 185 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 10 35 5 10 5 165 40 10 185 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 115 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.929 0.972 0.971 0.996
Flt Protected 0.988 0.966 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1677 0 0 1715 0 1736 1774 0 1736 1820 0 Flt Permitted 0.988 0.966 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1677 0 0 1715 0 1736 1774 0 1736 1820 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 985 537 980 866
Travel Time (s) 22.4 12.2 19.1 16.9
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 11 38 5 11 5 179 43 11 201 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 21 0 0 54 0 5 222 0 11 206 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 5 5 10 5 5 5 15 5 5 40 10
Future Volume (vph) 10 5 5 10 5 5 5 15 5 5 40 10
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.968 0.968 0.974 0.975
Flt Protected 0.974 0.974 0.990 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1722 0 0 1722 0 0 1762 0 0 1774 0
Flt Permitted 0.974 0.974 0.990 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1722 0 0 1722 0 0 1762 0 0 1774 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 642 1675 1700 1950
Travel Time (s) 14.6 38.1 38.6 44.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 11 5 5 11 5 5 5 16 5 5 43 11
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 21 0 0 21 0 0 26 0 0 59 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 25 5 5 50
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 25 5 5 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.932 0.979
Flt Protected 0.976 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 0 1789 0 0 1820
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 0 1789 0 0 1820
Link Speed (mph) 25 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 2421 1950 1290
Travel Time (s) 66.0 44.3 29.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 27 5 5 54
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 0 32 0 0 59
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 35 5 5 5 20 5 5 5 15 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 35 5 5 5 20 5 5 5 15 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.893 0.955 0.979 0.974
Flt Protected 0.995 0.984 0.967 0.990
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1623 0 0 1717 0 0 1730 0 0 1762 0
Flt Permitted 0.995 0.984 0.967 0.990
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1623 0 0 1717 0 0 1730 0 0 1762 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 5060 2589 1290 1092
Travel Time (s) 86.3 44.1 29.3 24.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 38 5 5 5 22 5 5 5 16 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 48 0 0 15 0 0 32 0 0 26 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 170 5 35 190 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 170 5 35 190 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.955 0.907 0.997 0.997
Flt Protected 0.984 0.992 0.999 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1717 0 0 1644 0 0 1820 0 0 1807 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.992 0.999 0.992
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1717 0 0 1644 0 0 1820 0 0 1807 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 903 5060 1103 841
Travel Time (s) 15.4 86.3 18.8 14.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 22 5 185 5 38 207 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 0 0 32 0 0 195 0 0 250 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Appendix B
Existing Conditions
Synchro Version 12 – Analysis
AM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing No Project 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 170 140 125 250 50 125 130 75 45 150 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 30 170 140 125 250 50 125 130 75 45 150 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1767 1841 1841 1767 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 185 152 136 272 54 136 141 82 49 163 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 57 390 320 172 716 142 172 375 318 72 212 49 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.43 0.43 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 897 737 1753 1431 284 1753 1841 1560 1753 1444 337 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 337 136 0 326 136 141 82 49 0 201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 0 1634 1753 0 1715 1753 1841 1560 1753 0 1780 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 11.9 6.1 0.0 9.5 6.1 5.3 3.6 2.2 0.0 8.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 11.9 6.1 0.0 9.5 6.1 5.3 3.6 2.2 0.0 8.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 57 0 710 172 0 858 172 375 318 72 0 262 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.47 0.79 0.00 0.38 0.79 0.38 0.26 0.68 0.00 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 0 710 336 0 858 357 1012 857 206 0 824 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.6 0.0 16.3 35.7 0.0 12.5 35.7 27.8 27.1 38.3 0.0 33.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 0.0 2.3 8.0 0.0 1.3 7.9 0.6 0.4 10.5 0.0 4.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 4.2 2.8 0.0 3.3 2.9 2.3 1.3 1.1 0.0 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 47.7 0.0 18.6 43.7 0.0 13.8 43.6 28.4 27.5 48.8 0.0 37.9 LnGrp LOS D BD BDCCD D
Approach Vol, veh/h 370 462 359 250
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 22.6 33.9 40.1
Approach LOS CCCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 39.7 12.4 16.4 7.1 45.0 7.8 21.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 32.5 16.5 37.5 7.5 40.5 9.5 44.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 13.9 8.1 10.8 3.5 11.5 4.2 7.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th TWSC Existing No Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 275 5 5 375 10 5 5 5 5 5 45
Future Vol, veh/h 10 275 5 5 375 10 5 5 5 5 5 45
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 - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 11 299 5 5 408 11 5 5 5 5 5 49
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 418 0 0 304 0 0 745 753 302 747 750 413 Stage 1 - - - - - - 323 323 - 424 424 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 421 429 - 323 326 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - 2.236 - - 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1130 - - 1245 - - 328 336 733 326 338 635 Stage 1 - - - - - - 685 647 - 604 584 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 606 580 - 685 645 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1130 - - 1245 - - 293 331 733 313 332 635 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 293 331 - 313 332 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 677 639 - 601 580 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 551 577 - 666 637 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.28 0.1 14.78 12.5

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 384 62 - - 23 - - 540
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 0.01 - - 0.004 - - 0.111
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 14.8 8.2 0 - 7.9 0 - 12.5
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.4
HCM 7th AWSC Existing No Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 10 35 5 10 5 165 40 10 185 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 10 35 5 10 5 165 40 10 185 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 11 38 5 11 5 179 43 11 201 5
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8 8.5 9.5 9.5

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 25% 70% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 80% 25% 10% 0% 97%
Vol Right, % 0% 20% 50% 20% 0% 3%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 5 205 20 50 10 190
LT Vol 5 0 5 35 10 0
Through Vol 0 165 5 5 0 185
RT Vol 0 40 10 10 0 5
Lane Flow Rate 5 223 22 54 11 207
Geometry Grp 552255
Degree of Util (X) 0.008 0.297 0.029 0.077 0.016 0.282
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.442 4.802 4.861 5.08 5.444 4.924 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 659 751 736 705 659 731
Service Time 3.161 2.522 2.893 3.108 3.164 2.644
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.297 0.03 0.077 0.017 0.283
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.2 9.5 8 8.5 8.3 9.6
HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 1.2 0.1 0.2 0 1.2
HCM 7th AWSC Existing No Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 5 5 10 5 5 5 15 5 5 40 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 5 5 10 5 5 5 15 5 5 40 10
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 11 5 5 11 5 5 5 16 5 5 43 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 10010010
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 RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 20% 50% 50% 9%
Vol Thru, % 60% 25% 25% 73%
Vol Right, % 20% 25% 25% 18%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 25 20 20 55
LT Vol 5 10 10 5
Through Vol 15 5 5 40
RT Vol 5 5 5 10
Lane Flow Rate 27 22 22 60
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.03 0.025 0.025 0.066
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.007 4.085 4.085 3.972
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 891 873 873 901
Service Time 2.042 2.127 2.127 2
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0.025 0.025 0.067
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
HCM 7th TWSC Existing No Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 25 5 5 50
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 25 5 5 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 27 5 5 54
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 95 30 0 0 33 0
Stage 1 30 -----
Stage 2 65 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 3.336 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 900 1039 - - 1567 -
Stage 1 987 -----
Stage 2 952 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 896 1039 - - 1567 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 896 -----
Stage 1 987 -----
Stage 2 949 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.78 0 0.66

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 962 164 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.011 0.003 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.8 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC Existing No Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 35 5 5 5 20 5 5 5 15 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 35 5 5 5 20 5 5 5 15 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 38 5 5 5 22 5 5 5 16 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 82 84 19 82 84 8 22 0 0 11 0 0
Stage 1 30 30 - 52 52 -------
Stage 2 52 54 - 30 33 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 2.236 - - 2.236 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 901 802 1053 901 802 1068 1581 - - 1595 - - Stage 1 982 866 - 956 848 -------
Stage 2 956 846 - 982 864 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 875 788 1053 848 788 1068 1581 - - 1595 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 875 788 - 848 788 -------
Stage 1 978 863 - 943 836 -------
Stage 2 932 834 - 937 861 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.81 9.14 4.87 1.45

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1091 - - 994 886 343 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - 0.049 0.018 0.003 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.3 0 - 8.8 9.1 7.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - AAAA -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.1 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC Existing No Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 170 5 35 190 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 170 5 35 190 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 5 5 5 22 5 185 5 38 207 5
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1111
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8 7.8 8.7 9.1

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 33% 17% 15%
Vol Thru, % 94% 33% 17% 83%
Vol Right, % 3% 33% 67% 2%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 180 15 30 230
LT Vol 5 5 5 35
Through Vol 170 5 5 190
RT Vol 5 5 20 5
Lane Flow Rate 196 16 33 250
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.236 0.022 0.042 0.293
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.334 4.858 4.601 4.218
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 833 739 781 838
Service Time 2.334 2.871 2.613 2.314
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.235 0.022 0.042 0.298
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.7 8 7.8 9.1
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.2
Appendix C
Existing Conditions
Synchro Version 12 - Input Data
PM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 250 135 95 175 50 145 165 115 65 150 45 Future Volume (vph) 25 250 135 95 175 50 145 165 115 65 150 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 250 0 165 165 175 175
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.947 0.967 0.850 0.965
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1678 0 1736 1703 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1763 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1678 0 1736 1703 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1763 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 22 12 125 13
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 597 497 1852 980
Travel Time (s) 8.1 6.8 36.1 19.1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 27 272 147 103 190 54 158 179 125 71 163 49 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 419 0 103 244 0 158 179 125 71 212 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.0 23.5 46.0 46.0 19.0 41.5 Total Split (%) 11.7% 30.4% 15.4% 34.2% 19.6% 38.3% 38.3% 15.8% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 19.0 41.5 41.5 14.5 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.1 34.4 10.6 42.1 13.5 24.8 24.8 9.4 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.37 0.12 0.46 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.65 0.52 0.31 0.62 0.36 0.25 0.40 0.60
Control Delay (s/veh) 49.3 33.3 52.0 21.3 51.1 31.4 6.4 49.9 39.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 49.3 33.3 52.0 21.3 51.1 31.4 6.4 49.9 39.5

LOS DC DC DCADD
Approach Delay (s/veh) 34.3 30.4 31.4 42.1
Approach LOS CCCD
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 91.9
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 34.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) Phasings Existing No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.0 23.5 46.0 46.0 19.0 41.5 Total Split (%) 11.7% 30.4% 15.4% 34.2% 19.6% 38.3% 38.3% 15.8% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 19.0 41.5 41.5 14.5 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
90th %ile Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 19.0 41.8 41.8 14.2 37.0 90th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Gap Ped 70th %ile Green (s) 7.8 32.0 12.9 37.1 16.2 24.4 24.4 10.8 19.0 70th %ile Term Code Gap MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 50th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.0 10.8 47.3 13.6 20.2 20.2 9.2 15.8 50th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.0 9.0 45.5 11.2 16.5 16.5 7.7 13.0 30th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 36.5 0.0 36.5 8.4 22.4 22.4 0.0 9.5 10th %ile Term Code Skip Hold Skip MaxR Gap Hold Hold Skip Gap Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 91.9
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 120
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 98.1
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90.2
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 83.2
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 67.9
Queues Existing No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 419 103 244 158 179 125 71 212 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.65 0.52 0.31 0.62 0.36 0.25 0.40 0.60
Control Delay (s/veh) 49.3 33.3 52.0 21.3 51.1 31.4 6.4 49.9 39.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 49.3 33.3 52.0 21.3 51.1 31.4 6.4 49.9 39.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 191 56 69 85 88 0 39 107
Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 #490 135 226 187 159 41 99 191 Internal Link Dist (ft) 517 417 1772 900
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 250 165 165 175
Base Capacity (vph) 185 641 273 786 371 855 793 283 742 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.65 0.38 0.31 0.43 0.21 0.16 0.25 0.29 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 405 5 5 295 5 5 5 5 5 5 20
Future Volume (vph) 20 405 5 5 295 5 5 5 5 5 5 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.999 0.998 0.955 0.907
Flt Protected 0.998 0.999 0.984 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1743 0 0 1740 0 0 1717 0 0 1644 0
Flt Permitted 0.998 0.999 0.984 0.992
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1743 0 0 1740 0 0 1717 0 0 1644 0
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 497 2819 975 1700
Travel Time (s) 6.8 38.4 22.2 38.6
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 22 440 5 5 321 5 5 5 5 5 5 22
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 467 0 0 331 0 0 15 0 0 32 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 5 10 5 15 5 155 80 15 245 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 5 10 5 15 5 155 80 15 245 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 115 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.955 0.932 0.949 0.997
Flt Protected 0.984 0.983 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1717 0 0 1674 0 1736 1734 0 1736 1821 0 Flt Permitted 0.984 0.983 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1717 0 0 1674 0 1736 1734 0 1736 1821 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 985 537 980 866
Travel Time (s) 22.4 12.2 19.1 16.9
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 11 5 16 5 168 87 16 266 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 0 0 32 0 5 255 0 16 271 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 15 10 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 5 20 10
Future Volume (vph) 15 10 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 5 20 10
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.979 0.955 0.979 0.961
Flt Protected 0.976 0.984 0.992 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1746 0 0 1717 0 0 1774 0 0 1743 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.984 0.992 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1746 0 0 1717 0 0 1774 0 0 1743 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 642 1675 1700 1950
Travel Time (s) 14.6 38.1 38.6 44.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 16 11 5 5 5 5 5 22 5 5 22 11
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 32 0 0 15 0 0 32 0 0 38 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 35 5 5 30
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 35 5 5 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.932 0.984
Flt Protected 0.976 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 0 1798 0 0 1814
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 0 1798 0 0 1814
Link Speed (mph) 25 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 2421 1950 1290
Travel Time (s) 66.0 44.3 29.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 38 5 5 33
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 0 43 0 0 38
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 25 5 5 5 20 15 5 5 5 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 25 5 5 5 20 15 5 5 5 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.901 0.955 0.984 0.955
Flt Protected 0.993 0.984 0.975 0.984
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1635 0 0 1717 0 0 1753 0 0 1717 0
Flt Permitted 0.993 0.984 0.975 0.984
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1635 0 0 1717 0 0 1753 0 0 1717 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 5060 2589 1290 1092
Travel Time (s) 86.3 44.1 29.3 24.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 27 5 5 5 22 16 5 5 5 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 37 0 0 15 0 0 43 0 0 15 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing No Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 20 10 160 5 25 255 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 20 10 160 5 25 255 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.955 0.907 0.996 0.998
Flt Protected 0.984 0.992 0.997 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1717 0 0 1644 0 0 1814 0 0 1816 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.992 0.997 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1717 0 0 1644 0 0 1814 0 0 1816 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 903 5060 1103 841
Travel Time (s) 15.4 86.3 18.8 14.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 22 11 174 5 27 277 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 0 0 32 0 0 190 0 0 309 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Appendix D
Existing Conditions
Synchro Version 12 – Analysis
PM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing No Project 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 250 135 95 175 50 145 165 115 65 150 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 250 135 95 175 50 145 165 115 65 150 45 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1767 1841 1841 1767 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 272 147 103 190 54 158 179 125 71 163 49 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, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 50 456 247 133 622 177 199 399 338 92 212 64 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.47 0.47 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1079 583 1753 1323 376 1753 1841 1560 1753 1359 408 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 0 419 103 0 244 158 179 125 71 0 212 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 0 1662 1753 0 1699 1753 1841 1560 1753 0 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 15.1 4.5 0.0 6.9 6.8 6.5 5.3 3.1 0.0 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 15.1 4.5 0.0 6.9 6.8 6.5 5.3 3.1 0.0 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 50 0 703 133 0 799 199 399 338 92 0 276 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.60 0.78 0.00 0.31 0.80 0.45 0.37 0.77 0.00 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 0 703 316 0 799 429 984 834 328 0 843 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 0.0 17.3 35.2 0.0 12.7 33.5 26.4 25.9 36.3 0.0 31.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 0.0 3.7 9.3 0.0 1.0 7.1 0.8 0.7 12.8 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 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 5.6 2.1 0.0 2.4 3.2 2.8 1.9 1.6 0.0 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 46.0 0.0 21.0 44.5 0.0 13.7 40.6 27.1 26.5 49.2 0.0 35.9 LnGrp LOS D CD BDCCD D
Approach Vol, veh/h 446 347 462 283
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 22.8 31.6 39.2
Approach LOS CCCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 37.3 13.3 16.6 6.7 41.0 8.6 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 32.0 19.0 37.0 9.5 36.5 14.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.5 17.1 8.8 10.9 3.2 8.9 5.1 8.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.0 0.3 1.2 0.0 1.3 0.1 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.4
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th TWSC Existing No Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 405 5 5 295 5 5 5 5 5 5 20
Future Vol, veh/h 20 405 5 5 295 5 5 5 5 5 5 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 - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 22 440 5 5 321 5 5 5 5 5 5 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 326 0 0 446 0 0 821 823 443 821 823 323 Stage 1 - - - - - - 486 486 - 334 334 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 334 337 - 486 489 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - 2.236 - - 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1222 - - 1104 - - 291 306 611 291 306 713 Stage 1 - - - - - - 559 547 - 675 639 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 675 638 - 559 546 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1222 - - 1104 - - 269 297 611 275 297 713 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 269 297 - 275 297 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 545 534 - 671 636 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 645 634 - 535 533 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.37 0.14 15.98 13.12

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 344 84 - - 29 - - 476
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 0.018 - - 0.005 - - 0.069
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 16 8 0 - 8.3 0 - 13.1
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2
HCM 7th AWSC Existing No Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 10 5 15 5 155 80 15 245 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 10 5 15 5 155 80 15 245 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 5 11 5 16 5 168 87 16 266 5
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 8.3 9.7 10.3

HCM LOSA A A B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 33% 33% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 66% 33% 17% 0% 98%
Vol Right, % 0% 34% 33% 50% 0% 2%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 5 235 15 30 15 250
LT Vol 5 0 5 10 15 0
Through Vol 0 155 5 5 0 245
RT Vol 0 80 5 15 0 5
Lane Flow Rate 5 255 16 33 16 272
Geometry Grp 552255
Degree of Util (X) 0.008 0.332 0.023 0.046 0.024 0.368
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.421 4.68 5.157 5.031 5.387 4.871 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 662 771 694 712 667 742
Service Time 3.137 2.395 3.191 3.061 3.103 2.587
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.331 0.023 0.046 0.024 0.367
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.2 9.7 8.3 8.3 8.2 10.4
HCM Lane LOS AAAAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.7
HCM 7th AWSC Existing No Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 10 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 5 20 10
Future Vol, veh/h 15 10 5 5 5 5 5 20 5 5 20 10
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 16 11 5 5 5 5 5 22 5 5 22 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 10010010
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 RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.3 7.1 7.2 7.1

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 17% 50% 33% 14%
Vol Thru, % 67% 33% 33% 57%
Vol Right, % 17% 17% 33% 29%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 30 30 15 35
LT Vol 5 15 5 5
Through Vol 20 10 5 20
RT Vol 5 5 5 10
Lane Flow Rate 33 33 16 38
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.036 0.037 0.018 0.042
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.014 4.103 3.982 3.934
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 891 871 896 909
Service Time 2.045 2.136 2.018 1.963
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 0.038 0.018 0.042
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.2 7.3 7.1 7.1
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
HCM 7th TWSC Existing No Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 35 5 5 30
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 35 5 5 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 38 5 5 33
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 84 41 0 0 43 0
Stage 1 41 -----
Stage 2 43 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 3.336 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 912 1025 - - 1552 -
Stage 1 977 -----
Stage 2 974 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 909 1025 - - 1552 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 909 -----
Stage 1 977 -----
Stage 2 970 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.78 0 1.05

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 963 257 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.011 0.004 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 8.8 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC Existing No Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 25 5 5 5 20 15 5 5 5 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 25 5 5 5 20 15 5 5 5 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 27 5 5 5 22 16 5 5 5 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 82 84 8 82 84 19 11 0 0 22 0 0
Stage 1 19 19 - 63 63 -------
Stage 2 63 65 - 19 22 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 2.236 - - 2.236 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 901 802 1068 901 802 1053 1595 - - 1581 - - Stage 1 995 876 - 944 839 -------
Stage 2 944 837 - 995 873 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 875 788 1068 857 788 1053 1595 - - 1581 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 875 788 - 857 788 -------
Stage 1 991 872 - 931 827 -------
Stage 2 920 825 - 960 870 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.79 9.14 3.64 2.43

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 857 - - 987 886 545 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - 0.039 0.018 0.003 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.3 0 - 8.8 9.1 7.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - AAAA -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC Existing No Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 5 5 20 10 160 5 25 255 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 5 5 20 10 160 5 25 255 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 5 5 5 22 11 174 5 27 277 5
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1111
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 8 8.7 9.8

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 6% 33% 17% 9%
Vol Thru, % 91% 33% 17% 89%
Vol Right, % 3% 33% 67% 2%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 175 15 30 285
LT Vol 10 5 5 25
Through Vol 160 5 5 255
RT Vol 5 5 20 5
Lane Flow Rate 190 16 33 310
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.232 0.023 0.043 0.37
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.393 4.977 4.719 4.304
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 820 720 759 843
Service Time 2.41 3.005 2.746 2.304
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.232 0.022 0.043 0.368
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.7 8.1 8 9.8
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.7
Appendix E
Existing With Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 - Input Data
AM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 35 200 140 130 325 50 125 134 75 45 155 55 Future Volume (vph) 35 200 140 130 325 50 125 134 75 45 155 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 250 0 165 165 175 175
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.938 0.980 0.850 0.961
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1667 0 1736 1719 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1756 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1667 0 1736 1719 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1756 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 7 136 16
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 597 497 1852 980
Travel Time (s) 8.1 6.8 36.1 19.1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 38 217 152 141 353 54 136 146 82 49 168 60 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 369 0 141 407 0 136 146 82 49 228 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 20.0 45.0 21.0 49.0 49.0 14.0 42.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 30.8% 16.7% 37.5% 17.5% 40.8% 40.8% 11.7% 35.0% Maximum Green (s) 7.5 32.5 15.5 40.5 16.5 44.5 44.5 9.5 37.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 3
Act Effct Green (s) 6.9 33.7 12.4 44.2 12.3 28.3 28.3 7.8 18.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.13 0.46 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.61 0.63 0.51 0.61 0.27 0.15 0.35 0.64
Control Delay (s/veh) 53.9 31.9 55.1 25.2 54.0 28.8 1.2 52.9 41.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 53.9 31.9 55.1 25.2 54.0 28.8 1.2 52.9 41.4

LOS D C E C D C A D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 34.0 32.9 32.0 43.5
Approach LOS CCCD
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 95.6
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.64
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 34.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) Phasings Existing With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 20.0 45.0 21.0 49.0 49.0 14.0 42.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 30.8% 16.7% 37.5% 17.5% 40.8% 40.8% 11.7% 35.0% Maximum Green (s) 7.5 32.5 15.5 40.5 16.5 44.5 44.5 9.5 37.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 3
90th %ile Green (s) 7.5 32.5 15.5 40.5 16.5 44.0 44.0 9.5 37.0 90th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Max Ped 70th %ile Green (s) 7.5 32.5 15.5 40.5 15.1 25.7 25.7 9.4 20.0 70th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 50th %ile Green (s) 7.5 35.0 13.0 40.5 12.7 21.6 21.6 8.1 17.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.5 10.7 47.7 10.5 28.8 28.8 0.0 13.8 30th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Skip Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.5 8.0 45.0 7.8 22.4 22.4 0.0 10.1 10th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Skip Gap Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 95.6
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 119.5
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 101.1
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 95.7
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 85.5
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 76.4
Queues Existing With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 369 141 407 136 146 82 49 228
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.61 0.63 0.51 0.61 0.27 0.15 0.35 0.64
Control Delay (s/veh) 53.9 31.9 55.1 25.2 54.0 28.8 1.2 52.9 41.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 53.9 31.9 55.1 25.2 54.0 28.8 1.2 52.9 41.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 164 82 179 79 75 0 29 122
Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 #385 174 383 167 127 6 77 203 Internal Link Dist (ft) 517 417 1772 900
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 250 165 165 175
Base Capacity (vph) 139 607 288 797 306 869 810 176 714 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.61 0.49 0.51 0.44 0.17 0.10 0.28 0.32 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 40 275 5 5 375 10 5 5 5 5 5 125
Future Volume (vph) 40 275 5 5 375 10 5 5 5 5 5 125
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.998 0.996 0.955 0.874
Flt Protected 0.994 0.999 0.984 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1740 0 0 1737 0 0 1717 0 0 1594 0
Flt Permitted 0.994 0.999 0.984 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1740 0 0 1737 0 0 1717 0 0 1594 0
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 497 2819 975 1700
Travel Time (s) 6.8 38.4 22.2 38.6
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 43 299 5 5 408 11 5 5 5 5 5 136
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 347 0 0 424 0 0 15 0 0 146 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 6 10 60 6 16 5 165 49 14 185 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 6 10 60 6 16 5 165 49 14 185 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 115 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.935 0.974 0.966 0.996
Flt Protected 0.989 0.965 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1689 0 0 1717 0 1736 1765 0 1736 1820 0 Flt Permitted 0.989 0.965 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1689 0 0 1717 0 1736 1765 0 1736 1820 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 985 537 980 866
Travel Time (s) 22.4 12.2 19.1 16.9
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 7 11 65 7 17 5 179 53 15 201 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 23 0 0 89 0 5 232 0 15 206 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 27 5 5 10 5 5 5 45 5 5 120 46
Future Volume (vph) 27 5 5 10 5 5 5 45 5 5 120 46
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.983 0.968 0.989 0.964
Flt Protected 0.964 0.974 0.996 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1731 0 0 1722 0 0 1800 0 0 1759 0
Flt Permitted 0.964 0.974 0.996 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1731 0 0 1722 0 0 1800 0 0 1759 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 642 1675 1700 1950
Travel Time (s) 14.6 38.1 38.6 44.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 29 5 5 11 5 5 5 49 5 5 130 50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 39 0 0 21 0 0 59 0 0 185 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 121 100 25 52 36 50
Future Volume (vph) 121 100 25 52 36 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.939 0.908
Flt Protected 0.973 0.979
Satd. Flow (prot) 1669 0 1659 0 0 1789
Flt Permitted 0.973 0.979
Satd. Flow (perm) 1669 0 1659 0 0 1789
Link Speed (mph) 25 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 2421 1950 1290
Travel Time (s) 66.0 44.3 29.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 132 109 27 57 39 54
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 241 0 84 0 0 93
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 66 5 5 5 115 5 5 5 15 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 66 5 5 5 115 5 5 5 15 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.881 0.955 0.995 0.974
Flt Protected 0.997 0.984 0.956 0.990
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1605 0 0 1717 0 0 1738 0 0 1762 0
Flt Permitted 0.997 0.984 0.956 0.990
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1605 0 0 1717 0 0 1738 0 0 1762 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 5060 2589 1290 1092
Travel Time (s) 86.3 44.1 29.3 24.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 72 5 5 5 125 5 5 5 16 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 82 0 0 15 0 0 135 0 0 26 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 115 5 170 5 66 190 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 115 5 170 5 66 190 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.955 0.875 0.997 0.998
Flt Protected 0.984 0.998 0.999 0.987
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1717 0 0 1595 0 0 1820 0 0 1800 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.998 0.999 0.987
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1717 0 0 1595 0 0 1820 0 0 1800 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 903 5060 1103 841
Travel Time (s) 15.4 86.3 18.8 14.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 125 5 185 5 72 207 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 0 0 135 0 0 195 0 0 284 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Appendix F
Existing With Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 – Analysis
AM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing With Project 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 200 140 130 325 50 125 134 75 45 155 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 35 200 140 130 325 50 125 134 75 45 155 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1767 1841 1841 1767 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 38 217 152 141 353 54 136 146 82 49 168 60 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, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 62 407 285 177 728 111 171 407 345 71 212 76 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.49 0.49 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 967 677 1753 1496 229 1753 1841 1560 1753 1295 462 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 0 369 141 0 407 136 146 82 49 0 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 0 1645 1753 0 1725 1753 1841 1560 1753 0 1757 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 13.9 6.5 0.0 13.2 6.3 5.6 3.6 2.3 0.0 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 13.9 6.5 0.0 13.2 6.3 5.6 3.6 2.3 0.0 10.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 62 0 693 177 0 840 171 407 345 71 0 288 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.53 0.80 0.00 0.48 0.79 0.36 0.24 0.69 0.00 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 158 0 693 327 0 840 348 984 834 200 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) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.6 0.0 18.0 36.6 0.0 14.3 36.7 27.4 26.6 39.4 0.0 33.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.6 0.0 2.9 8.0 0.0 2.0 8.0 0.5 0.4 11.1 0.0 4.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 5.1 3.0 0.0 4.8 3.0 2.4 1.3 1.2 0.0 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.2 0.0 20.9 44.6 0.0 16.3 44.7 27.9 27.0 50.4 0.0 38.3 LnGrp LOS D CD BDCCD D
Approach Vol, veh/h 407 548 364 277
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.5 23.6 34.0 40.4
Approach LOS CCCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.9 39.5 12.6 18.2 7.4 45.0 7.9 22.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 32.5 16.5 37.5 7.5 40.5 9.5 44.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 15.9 8.3 12.4 3.8 15.2 4.3 7.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.9
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th TWSC Existing With Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 275 5 5 375 10 5 5 5 5 5 125
Future Vol, veh/h 40 275 5 5 375 10 5 5 5 5 5 125
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 - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 43 299 5 5 408 11 5 5 5 5 5 136
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 418 0 0 304 0 0 810 818 302 813 815 413 Stage 1 - - - - - - 389 389 - 424 424 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 421 429 - 389 391 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - 2.236 - - 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1130 - - 1245 - - 296 308 733 295 309 635 Stage 1 - - - - - - 631 605 - 604 584 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 606 580 - 631 603 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1130 - - 1245 - - 217 292 733 273 293 635 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 217 292 - 273 293 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 602 577 - 601 580 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 469 577 - 592 575 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.04 0.1 16.88 13.27

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 319 224 - - 23 - - 581
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 0.038 - - 0.004 - - 0.252
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 16.9 8.3 0 - 7.9 0 - 13.3
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 1
HCM 7th AWSC Existing With Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 6 10 60 6 16 5 165 49 14 185 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 6 10 60 6 16 5 165 49 14 185 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 7 11 65 7 17 5 179 53 15 201 5
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.2 8.9 9.9 9.7

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 24% 73% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 77% 29% 7% 0% 97%
Vol Right, % 0% 23% 48% 20% 0% 3%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 5 214 21 82 14 190
LT Vol 5 0 5 60 14 0
Through Vol 0 165 6 6 0 185
RT Vol 0 49 10 16 0 5
Lane Flow Rate 5 233 23 89 15 207
Geometry Grp 552255
Degree of Util (X) 0.008 0.316 0.032 0.127 0.024 0.289
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.555 4.891 4.972 5.135 5.56 5.039 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 644 735 717 697 644 713
Service Time 3.288 2.624 3.022 3.176 3.294 2.772
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.317 0.032 0.128 0.023 0.29
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 9.9 8.2 8.9 8.4 9.8
HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.2
HCM 7th AWSC Existing With Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 5 5 10 5 5 5 45 5 5 120 46
Future Vol, veh/h 27 5 5 10 5 5 5 45 5 5 120 46
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 29 5 5 11 5 5 5 49 5 5 130 50
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 10010010
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 RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.8 7.6 7.6 8.1

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 9% 73% 50% 3%
Vol Thru, % 82% 14% 25% 70%
Vol Right, % 9% 14% 25% 27%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 55 37 20 171
LT Vol 5 27 10 5
Through Vol 45 5 5 120
RT Vol 5 5 5 46
Lane Flow Rate 60 40 22 186
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.069 0.051 0.027 0.205
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.18 4.586 4.494 3.965
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 845 785 801 898
Service Time 2.262 2.587 2.495 2.024
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 0.051 0.027 0.207
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.6 7.8 7.6 8.1
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8
HCM 7th TWSC Existing With Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 121 100 25 52 36 50
Future Vol, veh/h 121 100 25 52 36 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 132 109 27 57 39 54
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 188 55 0 0 84 0
Stage 1 55 -----
Stage 2 133 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 3.336 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 797 1006 - - 1501 -
Stage 1 962 -----
Stage 2 889 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 775 1006 - - 1501 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 775 -----
Stage 1 962 -----
Stage 2 865 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 10.76 0 3.12

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 865 753 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.278 0.026 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 10.8 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC Existing With Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 66 5 5 5 115 5 5 5 15 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 66 5 5 5 115 5 5 5 15 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 72 5 5 5 125 5 5 5 16 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 288 291 19 288 291 8 22 0 0 11 0 0 Stage 1 30 30 - 258 258 -------
Stage 2 258 261 - 30 33 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 2.236 - - 2.236 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 660 616 1053 660 616 1068 1581 - - 1595 - - Stage 1 982 866 - 742 690 -------
Stage 2 742 689 - 982 864 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 597 565 1053 559 565 1068 1581 - - 1595 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 597 565 - 559 565 -------
Stage 1 978 863 - 683 636 -------
Stage 2 674 634 - 906 861 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.14 10.53 6.87 1.45

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1505 - - 951 668 343 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.079 - - 0.087 0.024 0.003 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 9.1 10.5 7.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - ABAA -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.3 0.1 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC Existing With Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 5 5 115 5 170 5 66 190 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 5 5 115 5 170 5 66 190 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 5 5 5 125 5 185 5 72 207 5
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1111
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 8.5 9.2 10.2

HCM LOSA A A B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 3% 33% 4% 25%
Vol Thru, % 94% 33% 4% 73%
Vol Right, % 3% 33% 92% 2%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 180 15 125 261
LT Vol 5 5 5 66
Through Vol 170 5 5 190
RT Vol 5 5 115 5
Lane Flow Rate 196 16 136 284
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.252 0.023 0.172 0.361
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.631 5.121 4.545 4.583
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 775 696 787 783
Service Time 2.669 3.177 2.585 2.619
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.253 0.023 0.173 0.363
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.2 8.3 8.5 10.2
HCM Lane LOS AAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.1 0.6 1.7
Appendix G
Existing With Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 - Input Data
PM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 65 316 135 98 226 50 145 177 115 65 154 60 Future Volume (vph) 65 316 135 98 226 50 145 177 115 65 154 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 250 0 165 165 175 175
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.955 0.973 0.850 0.958
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1688 0 1736 1710 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1750 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1688 0 1736 1710 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1750 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 18 9 125 17
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 597 497 1852 980
Travel Time (s) 8.1 6.8 36.1 19.1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 71 343 147 107 246 54 158 192 125 71 167 65 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 490 0 107 300 0 158 192 125 71 232 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Permitted Phases 8
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.0 23.5 46.0 46.0 19.0 41.5 Total Split (%) 11.7% 30.4% 15.4% 34.2% 19.6% 38.3% 38.3% 15.8% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 19.0 41.5 41.5 14.5 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 8.5 35.6 10.8 37.7 13.6 25.9 25.9 9.5 18.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.38 0.11 0.40 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.76 0.54 0.44 0.63 0.38 0.24 0.41 0.64
Control Delay (s/veh) 55.9 38.2 53.9 26.8 52.8 32.2 6.3 51.4 41.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 55.9 38.2 53.9 26.8 52.8 32.2 6.3 51.4 41.0

LOS ED DC DCADD
Approach Delay (s/veh) 40.4 33.9 32.2 43.4
Approach LOS DCCD
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 94.4
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.76
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 37.2 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) Phasings Existing With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.0 23.5 46.0 46.0 19.0 41.5 Total Split (%) 11.7% 30.4% 15.4% 34.2% 19.6% 38.3% 38.3% 15.8% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 19.0 41.5 41.5 14.5 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
90th %ile Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 19.0 41.8 41.8 14.2 37.0 90th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Gap Ped 70th %ile Green (s) 9.5 32.7 13.3 36.5 16.4 25.9 25.9 10.9 20.4 70th %ile Term Code Max Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 50th %ile Green (s) 9.3 34.6 11.2 36.5 13.9 21.7 21.7 9.3 17.1 50th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 7.8 35.0 9.3 36.5 11.5 17.8 17.8 7.8 14.1 30th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 36.5 0.0 36.5 8.4 23.0 23.0 0.0 10.1 10th %ile Term Code Skip Hold Skip MaxR Gap Hold Hold Skip Gap Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 94.4
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 120
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 100.8
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 94.8
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 87.9
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 68.5
Queues Existing With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 490 107 300 158 192 125 71 232 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.76 0.54 0.44 0.63 0.38 0.24 0.41 0.64
Control Delay (s/veh) 55.9 38.2 53.9 26.8 52.8 32.2 6.3 51.4 41.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 55.9 38.2 53.9 26.8 52.8 32.2 6.3 51.4 41.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 250 61 128 90 100 0 41 123
Queue Length 95th (ft) 104 #619 139 283 187 169 41 99 207 Internal Link Dist (ft) 517 417 1772 900
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 250 165 165 175
Base Capacity (vph) 180 648 266 689 361 831 775 275 719 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.76 0.40 0.44 0.44 0.23 0.16 0.26 0.32 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 86 405 5 5 295 5 5 5 5 5 5 74
Future Volume (vph) 86 405 5 5 295 5 5 5 5 5 5 74
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.999 0.998 0.955 0.880
Flt Protected 0.991 0.999 0.984 0.997
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1740 0 0 1740 0 0 1717 0 0 1603 0
Flt Permitted 0.991 0.999 0.984 0.997
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1740 0 0 1740 0 0 1717 0 0 1603 0
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 497 2819 975 1700
Travel Time (s) 6.8 38.4 22.2 38.6
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 93 440 5 5 321 5 5 5 5 5 5 80
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 538 0 0 331 0 0 15 0 0 90 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 7 5 29 6 19 5 155 132 25 245 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 7 5 29 6 19 5 155 132 25 245 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 115 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.962 0.953 0.931 0.997
Flt Protected 0.986 0.974 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1733 0 0 1696 0 1736 1701 0 1736 1821 0 Flt Permitted 0.986 0.974 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1733 0 0 1696 0 1736 1701 0 1736 1821 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 985 537 980 866
Travel Time (s) 22.4 12.2 19.1 16.9
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 8 5 32 7 21 5 168 143 27 266 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 18 0 0 60 0 5 311 0 27 271 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 91 10 5 5 5 5 5 86 5 5 74 44
Future Volume (vph) 91 10 5 5 5 5 5 86 5 5 74 44
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.994 0.955 0.993 0.951
Flt Protected 0.959 0.984 0.998 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1742 0 0 1717 0 0 1811 0 0 1734 0
Flt Permitted 0.959 0.984 0.998 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1742 0 0 1717 0 0 1811 0 0 1734 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 642 1675 1700 1950
Travel Time (s) 14.6 38.1 38.6 44.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 99 11 5 5 5 5 5 93 5 5 80 48
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 115 0 0 15 0 0 103 0 0 133 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 93 63 35 147 100 30
Future Volume (vph) 93 63 35 147 100 30
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.946 0.891
Flt Protected 0.971 0.963
Satd. Flow (prot) 1678 0 1628 0 0 1759
Flt Permitted 0.971 0.963
Satd. Flow (perm) 1678 0 1628 0 0 1759
Link Speed (mph) 25 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 2421 1950 1290
Travel Time (s) 66.0 44.3 29.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 101 68 38 160 109 33
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 169 0 198 0 0 142
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 120 5 5 5 78 15 5 5 5 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 120 5 5 5 78 15 5 5 5 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.875 0.955 0.994 0.955
Flt Protected 0.998 0.984 0.961 0.984
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1595 0 0 1717 0 0 1745 0 0 1717 0
Flt Permitted 0.998 0.984 0.961 0.984
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1595 0 0 1717 0 0 1745 0 0 1717 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 5060 2589 1290 1092
Travel Time (s) 86.3 44.1 29.3 24.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 130 5 5 5 85 16 5 5 5 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 140 0 0 15 0 0 106 0 0 15 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing With Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 78 10 160 5 120 255 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 78 10 160 5 120 255 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.955 0.879 0.996 0.998
Flt Protected 0.984 0.997 0.997 0.984
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1717 0 0 1601 0 0 1814 0 0 1794 0
Flt Permitted 0.984 0.997 0.997 0.984
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1717 0 0 1601 0 0 1814 0 0 1794 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 903 5060 1103 841
Travel Time (s) 15.4 86.3 18.8 14.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 5 5 85 11 174 5 130 277 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 0 0 95 0 0 190 0 0 412 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Appendix H
Existing With Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 – Analysis
PM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing With Project 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 316 135 98 226 50 145 177 115 65 154 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 65 316 135 98 226 50 145 177 115 65 154 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1767 1841 1841 1767 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 343 147 107 246 54 158 192 125 71 167 65 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, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 91 494 212 137 628 138 197 419 355 92 211 82 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1173 503 1753 1403 308 1753 1841 1560 1753 1261 491 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 0 490 107 0 300 158 192 125 71 0 232 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 0 1676 1753 0 1711 1753 1841 1560 1753 0 1752 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 19.5 4.9 0.0 9.6 7.2 7.3 5.5 3.3 0.0 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 19.5 4.9 0.0 9.6 7.2 7.3 5.5 3.3 0.0 10.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 91 0 706 137 0 765 197 419 355 92 0 294 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.69 0.78 0.00 0.39 0.80 0.46 0.35 0.77 0.00 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 204 0 706 301 0 765 408 936 793 312 0 795 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.2 0.0 19.3 36.9 0.0 15.1 35.3 27.2 26.5 38.2 0.0 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.2 0.0 5.6 9.2 0.0 1.5 7.3 0.8 0.6 12.8 0.0 4.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 7.6 2.3 0.0 3.5 3.4 3.2 2.0 1.7 0.0 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 51.5 0.0 24.9 46.1 0.0 16.6 42.7 28.0 27.1 51.0 0.0 37.3 LnGrp LOS D CD BDCCD D
Approach Vol, veh/h 561 407 475 303
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 24.4 32.6 40.5
Approach LOS CCCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 38.9 13.7 18.2 8.7 41.0 8.8 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 32.0 19.0 37.0 9.5 36.5 14.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 21.5 9.2 12.4 5.3 11.6 5.3 9.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.1 0.3 1.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 30.7
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th TWSC Existing With Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 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 86 405 5 5 295 5 5 5 5 5 5 74
Future Vol, veh/h 86 405 5 5 295 5 5 5 5 5 5 74
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 - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 93 440 5 5 321 5 5 5 5 5 5 80
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 326 0 0 446 0 0 964 967 443 964 967 323 Stage 1 - - - - - - 630 630 - 334 334 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 334 337 - 630 633 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - 2.236 - - 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1222 - - 1104 - - 233 252 611 233 252 713 Stage 1 - - - - - - 466 472 - 675 639 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 675 638 - 466 470 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1222 - - 1104 - - 180 225 611 202 225 713 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 180 225 - 202 225 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 419 424 - 671 636 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 591 634 - 410 423 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.42 0.14 19.88 12.73

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 258 311 - - 29 - - 557
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 0.076 - - 0.005 - - 0.164
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 19.9 8.2 0 - 8.3 0 - 12.7
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.6
HCM 7th AWSC Existing With Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.4
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 7 5 29 6 19 5 155 132 25 245 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 7 5 29 6 19 5 155 132 25 245 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 8 5 32 7 21 5 168 143 27 266 5
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.6 8.9 10.6 10.6

HCM LOSA A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 29% 54% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 54% 41% 11% 0% 98%
Vol Right, % 0% 46% 29% 35% 0% 2%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 5 287 17 54 25 250
LT Vol 5 0 5 29 25 0
Through Vol 0 155 7 6 0 245
RT Vol 0 132 5 19 0 5
Lane Flow Rate 5 312 18 59 27 272
Geometry Grp 552255
Degree of Util (X) 0.008 0.407 0.028 0.087 0.042 0.378
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.528 4.702 5.37 5.312 5.519 5.002 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 647 764 664 673 649 720
Service Time 3.261 2.435 3.426 3.36 3.252 2.736
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.408 0.027 0.088 0.042 0.378
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 10.6 8.6 8.9 8.5 10.8
HCM Lane LOS ABAAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 2 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.8
HCM 7th AWSC Existing With Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 91 10 5 5 5 5 5 86 5 5 74 44
Future Vol, veh/h 91 10 5 5 5 5 5 86 5 5 74 44
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 99 11 5 5 5 5 5 93 5 5 80 48
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 10010010
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 RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh8.5 7.6 8.1 8

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 5% 86% 33% 4%
Vol Thru, % 90% 9% 33% 60%
Vol Right, % 5% 5% 33% 36%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 96 106 15 123
LT Vol 5 91 5 5
Through Vol 86 10 5 74
RT Vol 5 5 5 44
Lane Flow Rate 104 115 16 134
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.128 0.149 0.02 0.156
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.406 4.658 4.501 4.195
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 816 772 796 858
Service Time 2.418 2.675 2.522 2.206
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.127 0.149 0.02 0.156
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 8.5 7.6 8
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.6
HCM 7th TWSC Existing With Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 93 63 35 147 100 30
Future Vol, veh/h 93 63 35 147 100 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 101 68 38 160 109 33
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 368 118 0 0 198 0
Stage 1 118 -----
Stage 2 250 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 3.336 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 628 929 - - 1363 -
Stage 1 902 -----
Stage 2 787 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 577 929 - - 1363 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 577 -----
Stage 1 902 -----
Stage 2 723 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 12.03 0 6.05

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 681 1338 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.249 0.08 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 12 7.9 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1 0.3 -
HCM 7th TWSC Existing With Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 120 5 5 5 78 15 5 5 5 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 120 5 5 5 78 15 5 5 5 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 130 5 5 5 85 16 5 5 5 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 208 210 8 208 210 19 11 0 0 22 0 0 Stage 1 19 19 - 189 189 -------
Stage 2 189 191 - 19 22 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 2.236 - - 2.236 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 746 683 1068 746 683 1053 1595 - - 1581 - - Stage 1 995 876 - 809 740 -------
Stage 2 809 738 - 995 873 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 694 644 1068 612 644 1053 1595 - - 1581 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 694 644 - 612 644 -------
Stage 1 991 872 - 765 700 -------
Stage 2 755 699 - 865 870 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.09 10.08 5.88 2.43

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1364 - - 1021 726 545 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 - - 0.138 0.022 0.003 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - 9.1 10.1 7.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - ABAA -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.5 0.1 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC Existing With Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.9
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 5 5 78 10 160 5 120 255 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 5 5 78 10 160 5 120 255 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 5 5 5 85 11 174 5 130 277 5
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1111
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.5 8.6 9.3 12.3

HCM LOSA A A B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 6% 33% 6% 32%
Vol Thru, % 91% 33% 6% 67%
Vol Right, % 3% 33% 89% 1%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 175 15 88 380
LT Vol 10 5 5 120
Through Vol 160 5 5 255
RT Vol 5 5 78 5
Lane Flow Rate 190 16 96 413
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.248 0.024 0.128 0.518
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.686 5.349 4.834 4.511
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 765 665 738 797
Service Time 2.726 3.412 2.885 2.543
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.248 0.024 0.13 0.518
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.3 8.5 8.6 12.3
HCM Lane LOS AAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.1 0.4 3
Appendix I
Cumulative No Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 - Input Data
AM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 40 200 170 150 320 70 150 170 85 45 200 45 Future Volume (vph) 40 200 170 150 320 70 150 170 85 45 200 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 250 0 165 165 175 175
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.931 0.973 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3150 0 1736 3249 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1827 1553 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3150 0 1736 3249 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1827 1553 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 177 24 136 177
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 597 497 1852 980
Travel Time (s) 8.1 6.8 36.1 19.1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 43 217 185 163 348 76 163 185 92 49 217 49 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 402 0 163 424 0 163 185 92 49 217 49 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 12 12 121121
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Permitted Phases 84
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 7 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 21.0 46.0 21.0 48.0 48.0 14.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 30.8% 17.5% 38.3% 17.5% 40.0% 40.0% 11.7% 34.2% 34.2% Maximum Green (s) 7.5 32.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 43.5 43.5 9.5 36.5 36.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.0 33.5 13.7 45.2 13.7 27.2 27.2 7.9 18.9 18.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.34 0.14 0.46 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.34 0.67 0.28 0.67 0.37 0.17 0.35 0.62 0.11 Control Delay (s/veh) 56.4 15.9 57.1 19.4 57.1 31.7 2.0 54.3 44.4 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 56.4 15.9 57.1 19.4 57.1 31.7 2.0 54.3 44.4 0.5

LOS EB EB ECADDA
Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.8 29.9 34.9 39.1
Approach LOS B C C D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 98.1
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 30.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) Phasings Cumulative No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 21.0 46.0 21.0 48.0 48.0 14.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 30.8% 17.5% 38.3% 17.5% 40.0% 40.0% 11.7% 34.2% 34.2% Maximum Green (s) 7.5 32.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 43.5 43.5 9.5 36.5 36.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
90th %ile Green (s) 7.5 32.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 44.0 44.0 9.5 37.0 37.0 90th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Max Ped Ped 70th %ile Green (s) 7.5 32.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 26.8 26.8 9.4 19.7 19.7 70th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap 50th %ile Green (s) 7.5 34.3 14.7 41.5 14.7 23.5 23.5 8.2 17.0 17.0 50th %ile Term Code Max Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.5 12.3 49.3 12.3 19.6 19.6 7.0 14.3 14.3 30th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.5 9.0 46.0 9.0 23.9 23.9 0.0 10.4 10.4 10th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Skip Gap Gap Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 98.1
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 120.5
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 103.2
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 98.7
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 89.4
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 78.9
Queues Cumulative No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 402 163 424 163 185 92 49 217 49 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.34 0.67 0.28 0.67 0.37 0.17 0.35 0.62 0.11 Control Delay (s/veh) 56.4 15.9 57.1 19.4 57.1 31.7 2.0 54.3 44.4 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 56.4 15.9 57.1 19.4 57.1 31.7 2.0 54.3 44.4 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 51 98 85 98 99 0 30 130 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 120 #212 167 #212 159 12 78 204 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 517 417 1772 900
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 250 165 165 175 175
Base Capacity (vph) 135 1192 297 1508 297 827 778 171 694 700 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.34 0.55 0.28 0.55 0.22 0.12 0.29 0.31 0.07 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 300 10 5 440 10 5 5 10 5 5 95
Future Volume (vph) 20 300 10 5 440 10 5 5 10 5 5 95
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.995 0.997 0.929 0.877
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.988 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1737 0 1736 1740 0 0 1677 0 0 1599 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.988 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1737 0 1736 1740 0 0 1677 0 0 1599 0 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 497 2819 975 1700
Travel Time (s) 6.8 38.4 22.2 38.6
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 22 326 11 5 478 11 5 5 11 5 5 103
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 337 0 5 489 0 0 21 0 0 113 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 20 50 10 20 10 210 60 20 220 10 Future Volume (vph) 5 5 20 50 10 20 10 210 60 20 220 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 115 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.907 0.966 0.967 0.993
Flt Protected 0.992 0.970 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1644 0 0 1712 0 1736 1767 0 1736 1814 0 Flt Permitted 0.992 0.970 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1644 0 0 1712 0 1736 1767 0 1736 1814 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 985 537 980 866
Travel Time (s) 22.4 12.2 19.1 16.9
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 22 54 11 22 11 228 65 22 239 11
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 32 0 0 87 0 11 293 0 22 250 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 20 10 10 20 10 10 5 25 5 5 75 15
Future Volume (vph) 20 10 10 20 10 10 5 25 5 5 75 15
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.966 0.966 0.982 0.979
Flt Protected 0.976 0.976 0.993 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1722 0 0 1722 0 0 1781 0 0 1785 0
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.976 0.993 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1722 0 0 1722 0 0 1781 0 0 1785 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 642 1675 1700 1950
Travel Time (s) 14.6 38.1 38.6 44.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 22 11 11 22 11 11 5 27 5 5 82 16
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 44 0 0 44 0 0 37 0 0 103 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 50 5 5 90
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 50 5 5 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.932 0.989
Flt Protected 0.976 0.998
Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 0 1807 0 0 1823
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.998
Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 0 1807 0 0 1823
Link Speed (mph) 25 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 2421 1950 1290
Travel Time (s) 66.0 44.3 29.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 54 5 5 98
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 0 59 0 0 103
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 65 5 5 5 35 15 5 5 25 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 65 5 5 5 35 15 5 5 25 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.882 0.955 0.989 0.982
Flt Protected 0.997 0.984 0.969 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1607 0 0 1717 0 0 1751 0 0 1781 0
Flt Permitted 0.997 0.984 0.969 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1607 0 0 1717 0 0 1751 0 0 1781 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 5060 2589 1290 1092
Travel Time (s) 86.3 44.1 29.3 24.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 71 5 5 5 38 16 5 5 27 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 81 0 0 15 0 0 59 0 0 37 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 5 10 5 5 35 10 250 5 65 265 5
Future Volume (vph) 10 5 10 5 5 35 10 250 5 65 265 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.945 0.893 0.998 0.998
Flt Protected 0.980 0.995 0.998 0.990
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1692 0 0 1623 0 0 1820 0 0 1805 0
Flt Permitted 0.980 0.995 0.998 0.990
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1692 0 0 1623 0 0 1820 0 0 1805 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 903 5060 1103 841
Travel Time (s) 15.4 86.3 18.8 14.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 11 5 11 5 5 38 11 272 5 71 288 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 27 0 0 48 0 0 288 0 0 364 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Appendix J
Cumulative No Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 – Analysis
AM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative No Project 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 200 170 150 320 70 150 170 85 45 200 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 200 170 150 320 70 150 170 85 45 200 45 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1767 1841 1841 1767 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 217 185 163 348 76 163 185 92 49 217 49 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, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 66 719 584 200 1333 288 200 417 353 71 280 238 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.49 0.49 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1759 1428 1753 2746 593 1753 1841 1560 1753 1841 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 206 196 163 211 213 163 185 92 49 217 49 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1678 1510 1753 1678 1660 1753 1841 1560 1753 1841 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 7.1 7.5 7.8 6.3 6.5 7.8 7.4 4.1 2.4 9.7 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 7.1 7.5 7.8 6.3 6.5 7.8 7.4 4.1 2.4 9.7 2.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 66 686 617 200 815 806 200 417 353 71 280 238 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.30 0.32 0.81 0.26 0.26 0.81 0.44 0.26 0.69 0.77 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 154 686 617 338 815 806 338 937 794 195 786 666 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.6 17.0 17.2 37.0 12.9 13.0 37.0 28.4 27.2 40.5 34.8 31.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.6 1.1 1.3 7.8 0.8 0.8 7.7 0.7 0.4 11.6 4.6 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 2.6 2.5 3.5 2.2 2.2 3.7 3.2 1.5 1.2 4.5 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 51.2 18.2 18.5 44.8 13.7 13.8 44.7 29.2 27.6 52.1 39.4 32.1 LnGrp LOS DBBDBBDCCDDC
Approach Vol, veh/h 445 587 440 315
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 22.4 34.6 40.2
Approach LOS CCCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.3 39.4 14.3 17.5 7.7 46.0 7.9 23.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 32.5 16.5 36.5 7.5 41.5 9.5 43.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 9.5 9.8 11.7 4.1 8.5 4.4 9.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.3
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative No Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 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 20 300 10 5 440 10 5 5 10 5 5 95
Future Vol, veh/h 20 300 10 5 440 10 5 5 10 5 5 95
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 0 - - 0 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 22 326 11 5 478 11 5 5 11 5 5 103
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 489 0 0 337 0 0 867 875 332 867 875 484 Stage 1 - - - - - - 375 375 - 495 495 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 492 500 - 372 380 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - 2.236 - - 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1064 - - 1211 - - 271 286 706 271 286 579 Stage 1 - - - - - - 642 614 - 553 543 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 555 540 - 644 610 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1064 - - 1211 - - 213 278 706 255 278 579 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 213 278 - 255 278 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 629 601 - 550 540 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 449 537 - 616 598 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 0.51 0.09 15.65 13.84

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 360 1064 - - 1211 - - 521
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.06 0.02 - - 0.004 - - 0.219
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 15.7 8.5 - - 8 - - 13.8
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.8
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative No Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.5
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 20 50 10 20 10 210 60 20 220 10
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 20 50 10 20 10 210 60 20 220 10
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 22 54 11 22 11 228 65 22 239 11
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.4 9.2 11 10.5

HCM LOSA A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 17% 63% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 78% 17% 13% 0% 96%
Vol Right, % 0% 22% 67% 25% 0% 4%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 10 270 30 80 20 230
LT Vol 10 0 5 50 20 0
Through Vol 0 210 5 10 0 220
RT Vol 0 60 20 20 0 10
Lane Flow Rate 11 293 33 87 22 250
Geometry Grp 552255
Degree of Util (X) 0.017 0.405 0.046 0.13 0.034 0.355
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.631 4.972 5.121 5.366 5.649 5.115 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 634 722 694 665 632 700
Service Time 3.377 2.717 3.191 3.423 3.397 2.863
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 0.406 0.048 0.131 0.035 0.357
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.5 11.1 8.4 9.2 8.6 10.7
HCM Lane LOS ABAAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 2 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.6
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative No Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 10 10 20 10 10 5 25 5 5 75 15
Future Vol, veh/h 20 10 10 20 10 10 5 25 5 5 75 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 22 11 11 22 11 11 5 27 5 5 82 16
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 10010010
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 RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.5 7.5 7.4 7.7

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 14% 50% 50% 5%
Vol Thru, % 71% 25% 25% 79%
Vol Right, % 14% 25% 25% 16%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 35 40 40 95
LT Vol 5 20 20 5
Through Vol 25 10 10 75
RT Vol 5 10 10 15
Lane Flow Rate 38 43 43 103
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.044 0.051 0.051 0.117
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.143 4.198 4.198 4.065
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 855 843 843 875
Service Time 2.212 2.276 2.276 2.121
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.051 0.051 0.118
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.7
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4
HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative No Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 50 5 5 90
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 50 5 5 90
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 54 5 5 98
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 166 57 0 0 60 0
Stage 1 57 -----
Stage 2 109 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 3.336 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 820 1004 - - 1531 -
Stage 1 960 -----
Stage 2 911 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 817 1004 - - 1531 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 817 -----
Stage 1 960 -----
Stage 2 907 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.05 0 0.39

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 901 95 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 0.004 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 9 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative No Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 65 5 5 5 35 15 5 5 25 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 65 5 5 5 35 15 5 5 25 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 71 5 5 5 38 16 5 5 27 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 136 139 30 136 139 19 33 0 0 22 0 0 Stage 1 41 41 - 95 95 -------
Stage 2 95 98 - 41 43 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 2.236 - - 2.236 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 831 749 1039 831 749 1053 1567 - - 1581 - - Stage 1 969 857 - 907 812 -------
Stage 2 907 810 - 969 855 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 797 728 1039 747 728 1053 1567 - - 1581 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 797 728 - 747 728 -------
Stage 1 965 854 - 884 792 -------
Stage 2 874 790 - 894 852 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.96 9.48 4.68 1.04

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1091 - - 991 819 249 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - 0.082 0.02 0.003 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - 9 9.5 7.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - AAAA -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0.1 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative No Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.6
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 5 10 5 5 35 10 250 5 65 265 5
Future Vol, veh/h 10 5 10 5 5 35 10 250 5 65 265 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 11 5 11 5 5 38 11 272 5 71 288 5
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1111
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.6 8.4 10.2 11.3

HCM LOSA A B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 4% 40% 11% 19%
Vol Thru, % 94% 20% 11% 79%
Vol Right, % 2% 40% 78% 1%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 265 25 45 335
LT Vol 10 10 5 65
Through Vol 250 5 5 265
RT Vol 5 10 35 5
Lane Flow Rate 288 27 49 364
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.364 0.04 0.068 0.455
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.545 5.332 5.009 4.5
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 792 668 712 801
Service Time 2.576 3.389 3.063 2.529
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.364 0.04 0.069 0.454
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10.2 8.6 8.4 11.3
HCM Lane LOS BAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.7 0.1 0.2 2.4
Appendix K
Cumulative No Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 - Input Data
PM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 50 290 165 120 220 65 195 185 140 120 190 65 Future Volume (vph) 50 290 165 120 220 65 195 185 140 120 190 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 250 0 165 165 175 175
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.946 0.966 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3186 0 1736 3233 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1827 1553 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3186 0 1736 3233 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1827 1553 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 90 33 152 95
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 597 497 1852 980
Travel Time (s) 8.1 6.8 36.1 19.1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 315 179 130 239 71 212 201 152 130 207 71 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 494 0 130 310 0 212 201 152 130 207 71 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 12 12 121121
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Permitted Phases 84
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 7 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.0 23.0 46.0 46.0 19.0 41.5 41.5 Total Split (%) 11.7% 30.4% 15.4% 34.2% 19.2% 38.3% 38.3% 15.8% 34.6% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.5 41.5 14.5 37.0 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 8.0 32.9 11.8 39.1 16.1 22.7 22.7 11.8 18.4 18.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.12 0.40 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.44 0.62 0.24 0.74 0.47 0.32 0.62 0.60 0.19 Control Delay (s/veh) 54.4 23.9 57.0 21.1 56.9 36.0 6.6 56.6 43.8 4.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 54.4 23.9 57.0 21.1 56.9 36.0 6.6 56.6 43.8 4.4

LOS DC EC EDAEDA
Approach Delay (s/veh) 26.9 31.7 35.9 41.0
Approach LOS CCDD
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 97.5
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 33.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) Phasings Cumulative No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.0 23.0 46.0 46.0 19.0 41.5 41.5 Total Split (%) 11.7% 30.4% 15.4% 34.2% 19.2% 38.3% 38.3% 15.8% 34.6% 34.6% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.5 41.5 14.5 37.0 37.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
90th %ile Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 18.5 41.0 41.0 14.5 37.0 37.0 90th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Max Ped Ped 70th %ile Green (s) 9.5 32.0 14.0 36.5 18.5 22.8 22.8 14.5 18.8 18.8 70th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Max Gap Gap 50th %ile Green (s) 8.4 32.2 12.7 36.5 17.9 21.7 21.7 12.5 16.3 16.3 50th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 7.2 33.1 10.6 36.5 14.9 18.1 18.1 10.5 13.7 13.7 30th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.0 7.9 44.4 11.2 13.6 13.6 7.7 10.1 10.1 10th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 97.5
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 119.5
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 101.3
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 97.1
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 90.3
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 79.2
Queues Cumulative No Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 494 130 310 212 201 152 130 207 71 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.44 0.62 0.24 0.74 0.47 0.32 0.62 0.60 0.19 Control Delay (s/veh) 54.4 23.9 57.0 21.1 56.9 36.0 6.6 56.6 43.8 4.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 54.4 23.9 57.0 21.1 56.9 36.0 6.6 56.6 43.8 4.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 100 77 60 123 109 0 77 121 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 196 #174 125 #280 178 45 164 193 20 Internal Link Dist (ft) 517 417 1772 900
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 250 165 165 175 175
Base Capacity (vph) 172 1133 253 1317 335 792 759 262 715 666 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.44 0.51 0.24 0.63 0.25 0.20 0.50 0.29 0.11 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 75 465 10 5 360 10 5 5 10 5 5 40
Future Volume (vph) 75 465 10 5 360 10 5 5 10 5 5 40
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.997 0.996 0.929 0.890
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.988 0.995
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1740 0 1736 1738 0 0 1677 0 0 1618 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.988 0.995
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1740 0 1736 1738 0 0 1677 0 0 1618 0 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 497 2819 975 1700
Travel Time (s) 6.8 38.4 22.2 38.6
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 82 505 11 5 391 11 5 5 11 5 5 43
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 516 0 5 402 0 0 21 0 0 53 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 5 10 20 10 25 15 185 100 25 345 10 Future Volume (vph) 10 5 10 20 10 25 15 185 100 25 345 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 115 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.945 0.939 0.947 0.996
Flt Protected 0.980 0.982 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1692 0 0 1685 0 1736 1730 0 1736 1820 0 Flt Permitted 0.980 0.982 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1692 0 0 1685 0 1736 1730 0 1736 1820 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 985 537 980 866
Travel Time (s) 22.4 12.2 19.1 16.9
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 11 5 11 22 11 27 16 201 109 27 375 11
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 27 0 0 60 0 16 310 0 27 386 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 30 15 5 10 5 5 10 70 10 5 35 15
Future Volume (vph) 30 15 5 10 5 5 10 70 10 5 35 15
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.987 0.968 0.985 0.963
Flt Protected 0.970 0.974 0.994 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1749 0 0 1722 0 0 1789 0 0 1752 0
Flt Permitted 0.970 0.974 0.994 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1749 0 0 1722 0 0 1789 0 0 1752 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 642 1675 1700 1950
Travel Time (s) 14.6 38.1 38.6 44.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 33 16 5 11 5 5 11 76 11 5 38 16
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 54 0 0 21 0 0 98 0 0 59 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 100 5 5 50
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 100 5 5 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.932 0.994
Flt Protected 0.976 0.996
Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 0 1816 0 0 1820
Flt Permitted 0.976 0.996
Satd. Flow (perm) 1662 0 1816 0 0 1820
Link Speed (mph) 25 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 2421 1950 1290
Travel Time (s) 66.0 44.3 29.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 109 5 5 54
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 0 114 0 0 59
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 45 5 5 5 75 25 5 5 5 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 45 5 5 5 75 25 5 5 5 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.888 0.955 0.994 0.955
Flt Protected 0.996 0.984 0.965 0.984
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1616 0 0 1717 0 0 1752 0 0 1717 0
Flt Permitted 0.996 0.984 0.965 0.984
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1616 0 0 1717 0 0 1752 0 0 1717 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 5060 2589 1290 1092
Travel Time (s) 86.3 44.1 29.3 24.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 49 5 5 5 82 27 5 5 5 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 59 0 0 15 0 0 114 0 0 15 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative No Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 5 10 10 10 65 15 200 5 45 360 5 Future Volume (vph) 10 5 10 10 10 65 15 200 5 45 360 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.945 0.897 0.997 0.998
Flt Protected 0.980 0.994 0.997 0.995
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1692 0 0 1629 0 0 1816 0 0 1814 0
Flt Permitted 0.980 0.994 0.997 0.995
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1692 0 0 1629 0 0 1816 0 0 1814 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 903 5060 1103 841
Travel Time (s) 15.4 86.3 18.8 14.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 11 5 11 11 11 71 16 217 5 49 391 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 27 0 0 93 0 0 238 0 0 445 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Appendix L
Cumulative No Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 – Analysis
PM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative No Project 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 290 165 120 220 65 195 185 140 120 190 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 290 165 120 220 65 195 185 140 120 190 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1767 1841 1841 1767 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 315 179 130 239 71 212 201 152 130 207 71 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, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 76 820 455 164 1140 331 254 368 312 164 274 232 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.44 0.44 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 2081 1156 1753 2566 745 1753 1841 1560 1753 1841 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 253 241 130 154 156 212 201 152 130 207 71 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1678 1559 1753 1678 1633 1753 1841 1560 1753 1841 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 8.8 9.1 6.0 4.6 4.8 9.7 8.1 7.1 6.0 8.9 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 8.8 9.1 6.0 4.6 4.8 9.7 8.1 7.1 6.0 8.9 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 76 661 614 164 746 725 254 368 312 164 274 232 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.38 0.39 0.79 0.21 0.21 0.84 0.55 0.49 0.79 0.76 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 203 661 614 299 746 725 395 930 788 309 829 703 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.8 17.8 17.9 36.5 14.0 14.0 34.2 29.5 29.1 36.4 33.5 31.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.8 1.7 1.9 8.3 0.6 0.7 8.8 1.3 1.2 8.3 4.2 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 3.3 3.2 2.7 1.6 1.7 4.6 3.5 2.7 2.8 4.1 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 50.6 19.4 19.7 44.8 14.6 14.7 43.0 30.8 30.3 44.7 37.8 31.9 LnGrp LOS DBBDBBDCCDDC
Approach Vol, veh/h 548 440 565 408
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.6 23.6 35.3 39.0
Approach LOS CCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 36.9 16.4 16.7 8.0 41.0 12.2 20.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 32.0 18.5 37.0 9.5 36.5 14.5 41.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 11.1 11.7 10.9 4.5 6.8 8.0 10.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.6 0.3 1.4 0.0 1.6 0.2 1.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.9
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative No Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) PM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 75 465 10 5 360 10 5 5 10 5 5 40
Future Vol, veh/h 75 465 10 5 360 10 5 5 10 5 5 40
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 0 - - 0 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 82 505 11 5 391 11 5 5 11 5 5 43
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 402 0 0 516 0 0 1079 1087 511 1079 1087 397 Stage 1 - - - - - - 674 674 - 408 408 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 405 413 - 671 679 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - 2.236 - - 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1146 - - 1039 - - 194 214 559 194 214 648 Stage 1 - - - - - - 441 451 - 616 593 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 619 590 - 443 448 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1146 - - 1039 - - 163 198 559 172 198 648 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 163 198 - 172 198 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 410 418 - 613 590 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 569 587 - 398 416 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.14 0.11 19.44 14.56

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 271 1146 - - 1039 - - 431
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.08 0.071 - - 0.005 - - 0.126
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 19.4 8.4 - - 8.5 - - 14.6
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.4
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative No Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 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 10 5 10 20 10 25 15 185 100 25 345 10 Future Vol, veh/h 10 5 10 20 10 25 15 185 100 25 345 10 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 11 5 11 22 11 27 16 201 109 27 375 11
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9 9.2 11.1 13.4

HCM LOSA A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 40% 36% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 65% 20% 18% 0% 97%
Vol Right, % 0% 35% 40% 45% 0% 3%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 15 285 25 55 25 355
LT Vol 15 0 10 20 25 0
Through Vol 0 185 5 10 0 345
RT Vol 0 100 10 25 0 10
Lane Flow Rate 16 310 27 60 27 386
Geometry Grp 552255
Degree of Util (X) 0.026 0.423 0.042 0.092 0.042 0.542
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.663 4.913 5.626 5.52 5.575 5.053 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 631 731 631 645 641 714
Service Time 3.41 2.659 3.707 3.59 3.32 2.797
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 0.424 0.043 0.093 0.042 0.541
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.6 11.2 9 9.2 8.6 13.7
HCM Lane LOS ABAAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 3.3
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative No Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 15 5 10 5 5 10 70 10 5 35 15
Future Vol, veh/h 30 15 5 10 5 5 10 70 10 5 35 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 33 16 5 11 5 5 11 76 11 5 38 16
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 10010010
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 RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh7.7 7.4 7.7 7.4

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 11% 60% 50% 9%
Vol Thru, % 78% 30% 25% 64%
Vol Right, % 11% 10% 25% 27%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 90 50 20 55
LT Vol 10 30 10 5
Through Vol 70 15 5 35
RT Vol 10 5 5 15
Lane Flow Rate 98 54 22 60
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.111 0.065 0.026 0.067
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.1 4.317 4.232 4.028
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 867 820 833 879
Service Time 2.159 2.396 2.321 2.097
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 0.066 0.026 0.068
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.4
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2
HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative No Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 100 5 5 50
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 100 5 5 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 109 5 5 54
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 177 111 0 0 114 0
Stage 1 111 -----
Stage 2 65 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 3.336 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 809 936 - - 1463 -
Stage 1 908 -----
Stage 2 952 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 805 936 - - 1463 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 805 -----
Stage 1 908 -----
Stage 2 949 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.21 0 0.68

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 866 164 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.013 0.004 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 9.2 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative No Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 45 5 5 5 75 25 5 5 5 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 45 5 5 5 75 25 5 5 5 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 49 5 5 5 82 27 5 5 5 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 212 215 8 212 215 30 11 0 0 33 0 0 Stage 1 19 19 - 193 193 -------
Stage 2 193 196 - 19 22 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 2.236 - - 2.236 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 741 680 1068 741 680 1039 1595 - - 1567 - - Stage 1 995 876 - 804 737 -------
Stage 2 804 735 - 995 873 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 690 642 1068 662 642 1039 1595 - - 1567 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 690 642 - 662 642 -------
Stage 1 991 872 - 762 699 -------
Stage 2 752 697 - 940 870 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 8.99 9.94 5.27 2.44

HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1244 - - 962 744 545 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 - - 0.062 0.022 0.003 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.4 0 - 9 9.9 7.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - AAAA -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.2 0.1 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative No Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave PM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.7
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 5 10 10 10 65 15 200 5 45 360 5
Future Vol, veh/h 10 5 10 10 10 65 15 200 5 45 360 5
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 11 5 11 11 11 71 16 217 5 49 391 5
Number of Lanes 010010010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1111
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.8 9 10 13.4

HCM LOSA A A B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 7% 40% 12% 11%
Vol Thru, % 91% 20% 12% 88%
Vol Right, % 2% 40% 76% 1%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 220 25 85 410
LT Vol 15 10 10 45
Through Vol 200 5 10 360
RT Vol 5 10 65 5
Lane Flow Rate 239 27 92 446
Geometry Grp 1111
Degree of Util (X) 0.317 0.042 0.131 0.565
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.766 5.507 5.117 4.561
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 751 644 695 789
Service Time 2.82 3.594 3.19 2.608
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.318 0.042 0.132 0.565
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10 8.8 9 13.4
HCM Lane LOS AAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 0.1 0.4 3.6
Appendix M
Cumulative With Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 - Input Data
AM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 45 230 170 155 395 70 150 174 85 45 205 65 Future Volume (vph) 45 230 170 155 395 70 150 174 85 45 205 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 250 0 165 165 175 175
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.936 0.977 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3162 0 1736 3258 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1827 1553 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3162 0 1736 3258 0 1736 1827 1553 1736 1827 1553 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 152 18 136 177
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 597 497 1852 980
Travel Time (s) 8.1 6.8 36.1 19.1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 49 250 185 168 429 76 163 189 92 49 223 71 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 435 0 168 505 0 163 189 92 49 223 71 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 12 12 121121
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Permitted Phases 84
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 7 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 21.0 46.0 21.0 48.0 48.0 14.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 30.8% 17.5% 38.3% 17.5% 40.0% 40.0% 11.7% 34.2% 34.2% Maximum Green (s) 7.5 32.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 43.5 43.5 9.5 36.5 36.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Act Effct Green (s) 7.0 34.1 13.9 43.5 13.7 27.5 27.5 7.9 19.2 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.34 0.14 0.44 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.37 0.69 0.35 0.68 0.37 0.17 0.36 0.63 0.16 Control Delay (s/veh) 58.5 18.6 58.2 21.6 58.1 32.1 2.0 54.8 45.2 0.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.5 18.6 58.2 21.6 58.1 32.1 2.0 54.8 45.2 0.8

LOS E B E C E C A D D A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.7 30.7 35.4 37.4
Approach LOS CCDD
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 99.2
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 31.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) Phasings Cumulative With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 8 4
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 36.5 9.5 39.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 9.5 41.5 41.5 Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 21.0 46.0 21.0 48.0 48.0 14.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 30.8% 17.5% 38.3% 17.5% 40.0% 40.0% 11.7% 34.2% 34.2% Maximum Green (s) 7.5 32.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 43.5 43.5 9.5 36.5 36.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recall Mode None Max None Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Don't Walk (s) 25.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
90th %ile Green (s) 7.5 32.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 44.0 44.0 9.5 37.0 37.0 90th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Max Ped Ped 70th %ile Green (s) 7.5 32.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 27.2 27.2 9.4 20.1 20.1 70th %ile Term Code Max MaxR Max MaxR Max Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap 50th %ile Green (s) 7.5 33.8 15.2 41.5 14.7 23.9 23.9 8.2 17.4 17.4 50th %ile Term Code Max Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap 30th %ile Green (s) 7.0 35.8 12.7 41.5 12.3 19.9 19.9 7.0 14.6 14.6 30th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap MaxR Gap Hold Hold Gap Gap Gap 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 32.5 9.3 46.3 9.0 24.1 24.1 0.0 10.6 10.6 10th %ile Term Code Skip MaxR Gap Hold Gap Hold Hold Skip Gap Gap Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 99.2
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 120.5
70th %ile Actuated Cycle: 103.6
50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 99.1
30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 93.4
10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 79.4
Queues Cumulative With Project
1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 435 168 505 163 189 92 49 223 71 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.37 0.69 0.35 0.68 0.37 0.17 0.36 0.63 0.16 Control Delay (s/veh) 58.5 18.6 58.2 21.6 58.1 32.1 2.0 54.8 45.2 0.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.5 18.6 58.2 21.6 58.1 32.1 2.0 54.8 45.2 0.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 67 101 108 98 101 0 30 134 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 80 145 #224 204 #212 163 12 78 209 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 517 417 1772 900
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 250 165 165 175 175
Base Capacity (vph) 133 1185 294 1437 294 817 769 169 685 693 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.57 0.35 0.55 0.23 0.12 0.29 0.33 0.10 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative With Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 50 300 10 5 440 10 5 5 10 5 5 175
Future Volume (vph) 50 300 10 5 440 10 5 5 10 5 5 175
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.995 0.997 0.929 0.872
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.988 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1737 0 1736 1740 0 0 1677 0 0 1591 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.988 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1737 0 1736 1740 0 0 1677 0 0 1591 0 Link Speed (mph) 50 50 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 497 2819 975 1700
Travel Time (s) 6.8 38.4 22.2 38.6
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 9% 4% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 326 11 5 478 11 5 5 11 5 5 190
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 337 0 5 489 0 0 21 0 0 200 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative With Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 6 20 75 11 26 10 210 69 24 220 10 Future Volume (vph) 5 6 20 75 11 26 10 210 69 24 220 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 150 0 115 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.913 0.969 0.963 0.993
Flt Protected 0.993 0.967 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1656 0 0 1712 0 1736 1759 0 1736 1814 0 Flt Permitted 0.993 0.967 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1656 0 0 1712 0 1736 1759 0 1736 1814 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 35 35
Link Distance (ft) 985 537 980 866
Travel Time (s) 22.4 12.2 19.1 16.9
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 7 22 82 12 28 11 228 75 26 239 11
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 34 0 0 122 0 11 303 0 26 250 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative With Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 37 10 10 20 10 10 5 55 5 5 155 51
Future Volume (vph) 37 10 10 20 10 10 5 55 5 5 155 51
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.976 0.966 0.990 0.967
Flt Protected 0.969 0.976 0.996 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1728 0 0 1722 0 0 1801 0 0 1765 0
Flt Permitted 0.969 0.976 0.996 0.999
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1728 0 0 1722 0 0 1801 0 0 1765 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 642 1675 1700 1950
Travel Time (s) 14.6 38.1 38.6 44.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 40 11 11 22 11 11 5 60 5 5 168 55
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 62 0 0 44 0 0 70 0 0 228 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative With Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 8 ends

Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 121 100 50 52 36 90
Future Volume (vph) 121 100 50 52 36 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.939 0.931
Flt Protected 0.973 0.986
Satd. Flow (prot) 1669 0 1701 0 0 1801
Flt Permitted 0.973 0.986
Satd. Flow (perm) 1669 0 1701 0 0 1801
Link Speed (mph) 25 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 2421 1950 1290
Travel Time (s) 66.0 44.3 29.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 132 109 54 57 39 98
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 241 0 111 0 0 137
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Median Width(ft) 12 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative With Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 9 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 5 5 96 5 5 5 130 15 5 5 25 5
Future Volume (vph) 5 5 96 5 5 5 130 15 5 5 25 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.877 0.955 0.996 0.982
Flt Protected 0.998 0.984 0.958 0.993
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1599 0 0 1717 0 0 1743 0 0 1781 0
Flt Permitted 0.998 0.984 0.958 0.993
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1599 0 0 1717 0 0 1743 0 0 1781 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 5060 2589 1290 1092
Travel Time (s) 86.3 44.1 29.3 24.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 104 5 5 5 141 16 5 5 27 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 114 0 0 15 0 0 162 0 0 37 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Cumulative With Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 5 10 5 5 130 10 250 5 96 265 5
Future Volume (vph) 10 5 10 5 5 130 10 250 5 96 265 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.945 0.874 0.998 0.998
Flt Protected 0.980 0.998 0.998 0.987
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1692 0 0 1594 0 0 1820 0 0 1800 0
Flt Permitted 0.980 0.998 0.998 0.987
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1692 0 0 1594 0 0 1820 0 0 1800 0
Link Speed (mph) 40 40 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 903 5060 1103 841
Travel Time (s) 15.4 86.3 18.8 14.3
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 11 5 11 5 5 141 11 272 5 104 288 5
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 27 0 0 151 0 0 288 0 0 397 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Appendix N
Cumulative With Project Conditions
Synchro Version 12 – Analysis
AM Peak Hour
Highland Pointe Project
Waterford, CA
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative With Project 1: Hickman Rd/F Street & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 230 170 155 395 70 150 174 85 45 205 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 45 230 170 155 395 70 150 174 85 45 205 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1767 1841 1841 1767 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 250 185 168 429 76 163 189 92 49 223 71 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, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 70 756 539 205 1372 241 200 424 359 70 288 244 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.12 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1872 1333 1753 2853 502 1753 1841 1560 1753 1841 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 223 212 168 251 254 163 189 92 49 223 71 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 1678 1527 1753 1678 1676 1753 1841 1560 1753 1841 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 7.9 8.3 8.1 7.9 8.0 7.8 7.6 4.2 2.4 10.0 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 7.9 8.3 8.1 7.9 8.0 7.8 7.6 4.2 2.4 10.0 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 70 678 617 205 807 806 200 424 359 70 288 244 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.33 0.34 0.82 0.31 0.31 0.81 0.45 0.26 0.70 0.78 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 678 617 335 807 806 335 928 786 193 779 660 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.9 17.7 17.8 37.2 13.7 13.7 37.3 28.5 27.2 40.9 35.0 32.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.8 1.3 1.5 7.9 1.0 1.0 7.8 0.7 0.4 11.8 4.5 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 3.0 2.8 3.7 2.8 2.8 3.7 3.3 1.5 1.2 4.7 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 52.7 19.0 19.3 45.1 14.7 14.7 45.1 29.2 27.5 52.7 39.4 32.8 LnGrp LOS DBBDBBDCCDDC
Approach Vol, veh/h 484 673 444 343
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 22.3 34.7 40.0
Approach LOS CCCD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.6 39.4 14.3 18.0 8.0 46.0 8.0 24.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 32.5 16.5 36.5 7.5 41.5 9.5 43.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.1 10.3 9.8 12.0 4.4 10.0 4.4 9.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.3 0.2 1.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.3
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative With Project
2: Baker St/Tin Bell Road & Yosemite Blvd (SR 132) AM Peak Hour Synchro 12 Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 300 10 5 440 10 5 5 10 5 5 175
Future Vol, veh/h 50 300 10 5 440 10 5 5 10 5 5 175
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 0 - - 0 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 54 326 11 5 478 11 5 5 11 5 5 190
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 489 0 0 337 0 0 932 940 332 932 940 484 Stage 1 - - - - - - 440 440 - 495 495 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 492 500 - 437 446 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 - - 2.236 - - 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1064 - - 1211 - - 245 262 706 245 262 579 Stage 1 - - - - - - 592 574 - 553 543 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 555 540 - 594 571 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1064 - - 1211 - - 152 247 706 223 247 579 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 152 247 - 223 247 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 562 545 - 550 540 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 367 537 - 549 542 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 1.19 0.09 18.07 15.68

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 297 1064 - - 1211 - - 536
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.073 0.051 - - 0.004 - - 0.375
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 18.1 8.6 - - 8 - - 15.7
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.2 - - 0 - - 1.7
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative With Project
3: F Street & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.8
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 6 20 75 11 26 10 210 69 24 220 10
Future Vol, veh/h 5 6 20 75 11 26 10 210 69 24 220 10
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 7 22 82 12 28 11 228 75 26 239 11
Number of Lanes 010010110110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1122
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2211
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2211
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.6 9.7 11.5 10.8

HCM LOSA A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 16% 67% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 75% 19% 10% 0% 96%
Vol Right, % 0% 25% 65% 23% 0% 4%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 10 279 31 112 24 230
LT Vol 10 0 5 75 24 0
Through Vol 0 210 6 11 0 220
RT Vol 0 69 20 26 0 10
Lane Flow Rate 11 303 34 122 26 250
Geometry Grp 552255
Degree of Util (X) 0.017 0.428 0.049 0.184 0.042 0.364
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.754 5.076 5.246 5.434 5.777 5.243 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 619 704 674 655 616 683
Service Time 3.517 2.839 3.342 3.509 3.543 3.008
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 0.43 0.05 0.186 0.042 0.366
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.6 11.6 8.6 9.7 8.8 11
HCM Lane LOS ABAAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 2.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.7
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative With Project
4: Tin Bell Road & Bentley Street AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 10 10 20 10 10 5 55 5 5 155 51
Future Vol, veh/h 37 10 10 20 10 10 5 55 5 5 155 51
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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 40 11 11 22 11 11 5 60 5 5 168 55
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 10010010
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 RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh8.1 8 7.9 8.7

HCM LOSA A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 8% 65% 50% 2%
Vol Thru, % 85% 18% 25% 73%
Vol Right, % 8% 18% 25% 24%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 65 57 40 211
LT Vol 5 37 20 5
Through Vol 55 10 10 155
RT Vol 5 10 10 51
Lane Flow Rate 71 62 43 229
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.087 0.081 0.056 0.266
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.425 4.705 4.654 4.171
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 812 763 770 867
Service Time 2.441 2.726 2.676 2.171
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.087 0.081 0.056 0.264
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.9 8.1 8 8.7
HCM Lane LOS AAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.1
HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative With Project
5: Tin Bell Road & Vineyard Road AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 121 100 50 52 36 90
Future Vol, veh/h 121 100 50 52 36 90
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 132 109 54 57 39 98
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 259 83 0 0 111 0
Stage 1 83 -----
Stage 2 176 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 3.336 - - 2.236 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 726 971 - - 1467 -
Stage 1 936 -----
Stage 2 850 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 705 971 - - 1467 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 705 -----
Stage 1 936 -----
Stage 2 826 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 11.36 0 2.15

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 805 514 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.298 0.027 -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) - - 11.4 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC Cumulative With Project
6: Tin Bell Road & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 96 5 5 5 130 15 5 5 25 5
Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 96 5 5 5 130 15 5 5 25 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 5 5 104 5 5 5 141 16 5 5 27 5
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 342 345 30 342 345 19 33 0 0 22 0 0 Stage 1 41 41 - 302 302 -------
Stage 2 302 304 - 41 43 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.14 6.54 6.24 7.14 6.54 6.24 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.14 5.54 - 6.14 5.54 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 4.036 3.336 3.536 4.036 3.336 2.236 - - 2.236 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 608 575 1039 608 575 1053 1567 - - 1581 - - Stage 1 969 857 - 703 661 -------
Stage 2 703 659 - 969 855 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 542 520 1039 490 520 1053 1567 - - 1581 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 542 520 - 490 520 -------
Stage 1 965 854 - 639 601 -------
Stage 2 630 599 - 863 852 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Ctrl Dly, s/v 9.3 11.05 6.52 1.04

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1486 - - 953 611 249 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.09 - - 0.121 0.027 0.003 - -
HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 - 9.3 11.1 7.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - ABAA -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.4 0.1 0 - -
HCM 7th AWSC Cumulative With Project
7: Oakdale-Waterford Hwy & El Pomar Ave AM Peak Hour
Synchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Waterford City CouncilSeptember 3, 2026

Waterford City Council
September 3, 2026