Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 178-2020 (20-869)City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA City Council Resolution: RES 178-2020 File Number: 20-869 Enactment Number: RES 178-2020 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 410 NOOR AVENUE ("410 NOOR", OR "PROJECT") WERE SUFFICIENTLY ANALYZED UNDER THE SOUTH EL CAMINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15168 AND 15162, AND THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183 AND 15332, AND QUALIFIES FOR STREAMLINING PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183.3 AND 15183.5, AND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21159.28. WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed construction of a high-density residential development, consisting of 338 residential units, 466 parking spaces, a small retail space, and residential and open space amenities at 410 Noor Avenue, APNs 014-183-270, 014-183-230, and 014-183-220 (collectively referred to as "Project Site") in the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the El Camino Real Mixed Use ("ECRMX") zoning district; and WHEREAS, the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP 18-0006), Design Review (DR18-0006), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM18-0003), Waiver Modification (WM20-0005), General Plan Amendment (GPA20-0001), and Zoning Text Amendment (ZA20-0001) for the Project; and WHEREAS, approval of the applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") in January, 2010 (State Clearinghouse number 2009062070) in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the South El Camino area; and City of South San Francisco Page 1 File Number. 20-869 Enactment Number. RES 178-2020 WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") in January, 2010 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project's economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits; and WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as it is a qualified in -fill development project; and WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, as it is a residential infill project that is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning policies or community plans for which an EIR was certified because it is consistent with the General Plan and applicable policies of San Francisco Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy, the Plan Bay Area 2040 ("Plan Bay Area") and there are no Project -specific significant effects that require further environmental analysis; and WHEREAS, the Project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines § 15183.3, as it is located on an infill site; will satisfy the performance standards contained in Appendix M to the CEQA Guidelines and is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies of Plan Bay Area; and WHEREAS, the Project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5(b) because the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) with a mitigated negative declaration, and the Project incorporates greenhouse gas -reducing strategies from the CAP. WHEREAS, the Project also qualifies for streamlining pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21159.28 as it is an eligible residential infill project, is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies of the Plan Bay Area; and will incorporate applicable mitigation measures required by prior EIR; and WHEREAS, the City and applicant prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4). Such ECA concluded that even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above -listed exemption nor eligible for the above -listed streamlining provisions, the Project meets the requirements for use of a program EIR with later activities in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162 the Project is within the scope of the South El Camino General Plan Amendment and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed .and analyzed in the South El Camino General Plan Amendment EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required; and City of South San Francisco Page 2 File Number. 20-869 Enactment Number. RES 178-2020 WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South El Camino General Plan Amendment EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations; the Plan Bay Area and Plan Bay Area EIR, the South San Francisco Climate Action Plan and Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Environmental Consistency Analysis, including all attachments thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed December 1, 2020 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code Sections 21080(e) and 21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Environmental Consistency Analysis (Exhibit A), and Environmental Consistency Analysis Supporting Documents (Exhibits B to I) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager. B. CEOA Findinus 1. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332: Class 32 as an infill development project because: City of South San Francisco Page 3 File Number: 20-869 Enactment Number: RES 178-2020 a. As described in the record, the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan, all applicable General Plan policies and zoning designations and regulations, as proposed for amendment; b. The Project will be located within the City's limits, on a site of less than five acres and will be surrounded by urban uses in a built -out environment; c. The Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species as it is in a built -out environment and is currently disturbed as the site of an existing movie theater and parking areas; d. As supported by the findings of the ECA, approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and, e. The Project can be adequately serviced by all required utilities and public services. 2. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 as the Project is consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning for which an EIR was certified because as supported by the findings of the ECA: a. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing El Camino Mixed Use Zoning and General Plan policies for which the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR was certified; b. There are no project -specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site; c. There are no project -specific impacts, which the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR failed to analyze as significant effects; d. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR failed to evaluate; and, e. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR. 3. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that approval of the Project will result, as contemplated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, in significant environmental effects beyond those adequately evaluated and addressed by the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR, nor would the Project require any new mitigation measures and therefore, the Project is within the scope of the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR and the Program EIR may be used for this later activity pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because: a. The Project does not propose substantial changes to the South El Camino General Plan Amendment, which will require major revisions of the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the South El Camino General Plan Amendment is undertaken which will require major revisions of the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and, City of South San Francisco Page 4 File Number. 20-869 Enactment Number. RES 178-2020 c. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the South El Camino General Plan Amendment EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR; ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 4. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project qualifies for streamlining pursuant to Public Resources Code 21159.28 for residential projects because it meets the following criteria: a. The Project is at least 75% residential; and b. The Project is consistent with the general use, designation, density, building intensity and applicable policies of the Plan Bay Area; and c. The Project will incorporate mitigation measures required by a prior EIR. 5. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project qualifies for streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15183.3 because it meets the following criteria: a. The Project is located on an infill site; b. The Project will satisfy the performance standards contained in Appendix M to the CEQA Guidelines; and c. The Project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies of San Francisco Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy, the Plan Bay Area 2040 ("Plan Bay Area"). 6. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project qualifies for streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15183.5 because it meets the following criteria: a. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) with a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and b. The Project incorporates greenhouse -gas reducing strategies from the CAP. 7. The City Council finds that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332: Class 32 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and qualifies for streamlining under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.3 d 15183.5(b) and Public Resources Code 21159.28. The Planning Commission also finds that the Project falls within the environmental parameters analyzed in the South El Camino General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because as contemplated in CEQA City of South San Francisco Page 5 File Number: 20-869 Enactment Number: RES 178-2020 Guidelines Section 15162, the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required by the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the Project implements the policies of the South El Camino General Plan Amendment, and all the reports prepared for the Project (Traffic Analysis, Noise Analysis, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Tree Report), determined that the Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and all impacts were addressed by the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed under the South El Camino General Plan Amendment Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168, and that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15332, and qualifies for streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.3 and 15183.5 and Public Resources Code Section 21159.28. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. At a meeting of the City Council on 12/1/2020, a motion was made by Councilmember Nagales, seconded by Councilmember Nicolas, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed. Yes: 5 Mayor Garbarino, Vice Mayor Addiego, Councilmember Nagales, Councilmember Nicolas, pnd Councilmember Matsumoto Attest by Govea Acosta, City Clerk City of South San Francisco Page 6 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit A: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INITIAL STUDY AND CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST 1.0 INTRODUCTION: This document is a Consistency Checklist to examine the environmental effects of the proposed 410 Noor Avenue mixed-use project (the “Project”) located at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco (“Project Site”). This document has been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) of 1970 (as amended) and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of South San Francisco (the “City”). According to Section 15168(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a program Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) can be used in compliance with CEQA to address the effects of a subsequent activity so long as, after conducting a site-specific analysis pursuant to Section 15168(c)(4) to determine that the activity is within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR. If such a determination is made, pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required. As supported by the analysis presented in this document, in accordance with the requirements of Section 15162 and 15168(c)(4), the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than what was analyzed in the South El Camino Real General Plan Program EIR1 (the “GPA EIR”), the 1999 General Plan Update EIR2 (“GP EIR”), and the Plan Bay Area 2040 EIR (“PBA EIR”)3 (collectively “the EIRs”). With regard to the PBA EIR, Plan Bay Area is San Francisco Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted pursuant to SB 375. Plan Bay Area 2040 integrates land use and transportation strategies to achieve state and regional emissions reduction targets. As discussed below, the Project Site is in a Priority Development Area and a Transit Priority Area, and the Project implements the Plan Bay Area 2040 state and regional emission targets and policies. The PBA EIR’s greenhouse gas impact analysis, in particular, is discussed and tiered from in this document. This document includes a description of the Project and a comparison of the potential impacts of the Project to those identified in the EIRs. This document also examines the consistency of the Project with the General Plan for the purposes of CEQA Guidelines 15183, which allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. 1 Revised Draft EIR available at http://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=51192&dbid=0; Final EIR available at http://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/doc/82904/Page1.aspx. 2 Draft EIR available at http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/62909/Page1.aspx; Final EIR available at http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/64847/Page1.aspx. 3 http://www.2040.planbayarea.org/reports 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 2 1.1 Project/Site Overview Project Title 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Development Lead Agency Name and Address City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Contact Person Adena Friedman Project Site 410 Noor Avenue, South San Francisco, California Project Sponsor Glen Ceridono, Senior Vice President SyRES Properties LLC 150 Pelican Way San Rafael, CA 94901 gceridono@syresproperties.com (415)448-8300 General Plan Designation El Camino Real Mixed Use Zoning El Camino Real Mixed Use (“ ECRMX”) Existing Setting Currently, the Project site consists of two paved parcels containing a vacant 51,100 square foot multiplex movie theatre and fenced-off surface parking that is not in use. The cinema is housed in a one-story building surrounded by parking. The site is relatively level in elevation. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The Project site is surrounded by large and small commercial retail tenants, a hotel, surface parking, offices, and the See’s Candies facility, and is located within ½ mile of the San Bruno BART and San Bruno CalTrain Station. Required Approvals 4 City: The Project requires CEQA clearance, a Conditional Use Permit (required for reduction of parking, increased density under the incentives program for the ECRMX zoning district, and design exceptions requiring Planning Commission approval), Design Review, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, and a lot merger under the Subdivision Map Act. In addition, clarifying amendments to General Plan Policies are necessary. If determined necessary by the Airport Land Use Commission, a local agency override pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 may also be required. 4 As proposed the Project would not require a CalTrans encroachment permit, but should the Project require encroachments on El Camino Real it will obtain an encroachment permit from CalTrans. Further, if it is found that the trees shown on the site in the Project’s Arborist Report (Exhibit F, Michael L. Bench, Evaluation of Existing Trees – 410 Noor Ave) are protected by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, a tree removal permit would be obtained from the City pursuant to that Ordinance. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 3 State Water Resources Control Board: The Project requires clearance under the Construction General Permit (discussed below). Bay Area Air Quality Management District: The Project requires clearance for the backup generator. Airport Land Use Commission: Review for consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. Project Vicinity Map See Figure 1, below. Conceptual Site Plan See Figure 2, below. NOTE: Sizes, measurements, and location of Project uses are conceptual, and all measures are approximate. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 4 FIGURE 1 – PROJECT VICINITY MAP 410 NOOR AVENUE 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 5 FIGURE 2 – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 410 NOOR AVENUE 1.2 Background The GPA EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendments and associated Zoning Code amendments (“the Amendment”), which collectively established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the Planning Area for a 20- year planning period. In 2010, after public review and comment, the City certified the GPA EIR (State Clearinghouse #2009062070), adopted CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations, and adopted the 2010 Amendments. The GP EIR was certified in 1999 (State Clearinghouse #97122030) and assessed the potential impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan, which outlines a vision for the City’s long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community. The PBA EIR (SCH # 2016052041) was certified in 2017 and discloses potential environmental impacts of the PBA's projected growth and impacts associated with implementing the PBA’s projected land use and assumed transportation projects. The EIRs are incorporated by reference into this document. The City has prepared this document to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Project, which meets the relevant development standards in the General Plan and Zoning Code, as revised by the GP Amendment, and the PBA. The Project is consistent with and implements the policies and vision set forth in the General Plan, the Amendment, and the PBA. As discussed below in Section 3.10 (Land Use and Planning) and Section 3.12 (Noise), because the currently adopted Exhibit IV-6 of the Airport Land Use Consistency Plan (ALUCP), (adopted in 2012 based on 2011 data), shows the Project site l argely in the 70+ dB CNEL and the currently adopted FAA Part 150 2019 Noise Exposure Map, (published in 2015 based on 2014 data), shows a small portion of one of the proposed buildings within the 70+ dB CNEL, clarifying General Plan text amendments are proposed to the following General Plan policies that expressly reference these specific currently-adopted, noise contour maps. The proposed amendments expressly incorporate City Council discretion to approve appropriate projects based on technical studies and add a reference to the Local Agency Override process for projects (already available under State law), to the extent such an override process is necessary. The language of the proposed amendments is as follows (new text shown in underline): Land Use Policy 2-I-22: Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport, with the exception of projects deemed appropriate by the City Council, and to the extent necessary, approved through the Local Agency Override process, consistent with the Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq. Noise Policy 9-1-10: Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in the CNEL 70 dB+ areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria, with the exception of projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and to the extent necessary, approved through the Local Agency Override process. Noise Policy 9-I-11: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA- 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 7 accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO), or those projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and, to the extent necessary, approved through the Local Agency Override process, to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. As discussed below, the Project is consistent with the land use designation and other policies of the General Plan and Plan Bay Area 2040. These clarifying amendments to the General Plan noise-related policies will allow the City to better achieve the vision and policies of the General Plan and ensure internal policy consistency. 1.3 Legal Authority CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 The Project is a component of the General Plan and would implement the vision and goals described in the General Plan for the Project area. As noted above, while the project includes clarifying amendments to two General Plan policies, these clarifying policy amendments are intended to achieve the City’s overall goals and further the City’s General Plan policies for the Project Site. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish the type of environmental documentation that is required for subsequent actions in a program. Specifically, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines allow for limited environmental review of subsequent projects within the scope of a project analyzed in a Program EIR. Subsequent activities in a proposed program are examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. The CEQA Guidelines require agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this analysis. CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) explains how the City should use a Program EIR with later activities within the scope of the program EIR. This document uses the Program EIRS from the General Plan and the 2010 South El Camino Amendment thereto, and the Plan Bay Area and examines the following: 1.If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. 2.If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measure would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. 3.An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. 4.Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. 5.A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. All applicable and relevant mitigation measures have been incorporated into this document, and are 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 8 included in Attachment A to this document. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 The Project is designed to be consistent with the development standards in the General Plan and Zoning Code, which were analyzed in the GPA EIR. As noted above, while the project includes clarifying amendments to two General Plan policies, these clarifying policy amendments intended to achieve the City’s overall goals and policies of the General Plan for the Project Site, and are intended to provide policy consistency. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines mandate that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning policies or community plans for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. Specifically, in approving a project meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15183, the City must limit its examination of environmental effects to those that the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: 1.Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; 2.Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent; (General Plan EIR and South El Camino Amendment EIR); 3.Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or 4.Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in a prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then no additional EIR is required to address that impact. Uniformly applied development policies and standards include those policies in the General Plan, Community Plan, and Municipal Code, as well as applicable regional, state, and federal laws. 1.4 Purpose One purpose of the Consistency Checklist is to analyze whether the Project is within the scope of the General Plan and whether its construction or operation could result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those identified in the GPA EIR, GP EIR and PBA EIR or require new mitigation measures. A second purpose of this Consistency Checklist is to analyze the Project’s consistency with the Zoning Code and General Plan and whether it will result in any impacts that are peculiar to the Project or Project Site that either were not analyzed in the EIRs or would be more severe than previously disclosed and would not be addressed by uniformly applied development policies or standards. As determined in the analysis provided in the Consistency Checklist, in accordance with the requirements of Section 15162, the Project will not involve “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects” that were not previously identified in the EIRs. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. The environmental impacts associated with the Project would be within the scope of impacts analyzed in the EIRs and would not be new or greater. In addition, the Consistency Checklist shows that the Project is consistent with the goals of 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 9 General Plan and development standards of the Zoning Code and has no impacts that would be peculiar to the Project or the Project site. On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, the City has determined that no further CEQA documentation beyond this Consistency Checklist is required for approval of the Project because the Project meets the requirements under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) and that the Project qualifies for a CEQA exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. 1.5 Other Available CEQA Exemptions and Streamlining Compliance Mechanisms The City has chosen to principally rely on the CEQA review processes provided by CEQA Guidelines § 15168 (streamlining with use of the GPA EIR, GP EIR and PBA EIR) and §15183 (exemption for projects consistent with a general plan, community plan, or zoning action). Nevertheless, based on the nature and location of the Project, and the analysis provided herein, the proposed Project also qualifies for several other CEQA compliance options, including exemptions and streamlining:5 •The Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a qualified in-fill development project because it: 1) is consistent with applicable general plan designation and policies (see Exhibit C, Consistency with Impact Reducing Policies), with the addition of the clarifying amendments to General Plan policies related to noise as discussed above as well as the zoning designation and development regulations; 2) is located within the city limits and on an infill site that is less than 5 acres; 3) is located on a site that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; 4) will not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and 5) is located on a site that is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. •The Project qualifies for streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15183.3 for infill projects because it: 1) is located on an infill site; 2) will satisfy the performance standards contained in Appendix N to the CEQA Guidelines (see Exhibit D, CEQA Appendix N Infill Checklist; and 3) is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies of San Francisco Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, the Plan Bay Area 2040 (“Plan Bay Area”). See the Land Use and Planning section of this ECA for an analysis of the Project’s consistency with Plan Bay Area. •The Project qualifies for streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 21159.28 for residential projects because it: 1) is at least 75% residential; 2) is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies of the Plan Bay Area; and 3) as described herein, will incorporate applicable mitigation measures required by a prior EIR. •The Project qualifies for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5(b) because: 1) the City adopted a Climate Action Plan with a mitigated negative declaration, and 2) the Project incorporates greenhouse gas-reducing strategies from the CAP. (See Exhibit E, Climate Action Plan Checklist) 5 https://www.planbayarea.org/resources/ceqa-streamlining-opportunities/ceqa-streamlining- exemptions#Infill%20Project%20Exemption 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 10 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Existing Conditions The Project Site consists of two parcels (Parcels 1 and 2) totaling approximately 4.74 acres located at the corner of Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue, and extending northwest along Huntington Avenue. The Project Site is an infill site currently developed with a vacant 51,100 square foot theater and surface-level parking lot, is surrounded by other urban uses, and is located within the area covered by the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment. The Property is located near the San Bruno/South San Francisco border and within 1/2 mile, a walkable distance, from the San Bruno BART station. FIGURE 4 - EXISTING CONDITIONS FROM NORTHEAST FIGURE 5 – EXISTING CONDITIONS FROM NORTHWEST 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 11 FIGURE 6 – EXISTING CONDITIONS FROM NORTH FIGURE 7 PROXIMITY TO SAN BRUNO BART STATION 2.2 Project Overview and Uses The Project proposes to redevelop the Project site with construction occurring over a 24-30 month period with three mixed use, but predominantly residential, buildings totaling 556,943 square feet, with 338 multi - family rental units, approximately 8,500 square feet of amenities (i.e, a fitness center, a yoga studio, club rooms, a business center and bike rooms), a 1,141 square-foot cafe, and 476 underground parking spaces. The Project’s 338 multi-family apartments would be a mix of studios, 1-bedroom units, and 2-bedroom units with stoops along Huntington and Noor Avenues. The café, amenity space, and publicly accessible plazas, totaling over 72,000 square feet, and the residential stoops will further activate Huntington and Noor Avenues. The Project proposes two buildings on Parcel 1: one would consist of one level of underground parking and three floors of residential uses, and the other would consist of two levels of underground parking and five floors of residential uses. There is one building proposed for Parcel 2 and it would consist of one level of underground parking, with four floors of residential uses. The Project’s three buildings would consist of a gross total of approximately 556,943 square feet, broken down as follows (all sizes are approximate and in square feet): Rentable Residential 311,093 Other Residential Space (Corridors, Stairs, Lobbies, Etc.) 61,990 Amenity Space 8,429 Retail (Café) 1,141 Leasing Office 1,080 Garage/Utilities 173,210 TOTAL 556,943 2.3 Circulation, Parking, and Transportation Demand Management Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue, with one point of garage access provided to the building on Parcel 2 on Huntington Avenue, and one point of garage access provided to each of the buildings on Parcel 1, one on Huntington Avenue and one on Noor Avenue. Pedestrians and cyclists would have access to the Project site from Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue. A central pedestrian path connects all three buildings and the community garden. Secondary on-site pedestrian paths circulate around the buildings and to the mews between the buildings. All building entries and outdoor amenity spaces provide accessible access to public sidewalks. Respecting the interests of the Project’s commercial neighbor on Noor Avenue, the mews provides direct access to the neighboring commercial site. In addition to common circulation around, into and through the site, ground floor residential units facing Noor and Huntington Avenues provide private access to the public sidewalk via stoops. The Project would include 476 off -street parking spaces for residents, visitors, and amenity users, as well as 86 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 68 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The Project will also include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program designed to reduce 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 13 the number of peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the project by implementing measures aimed at reducing vehicle trips, such as: •Unbundled parking •Welcome transit information packet for all residents •154 bicycle parking spaces •Priority parking for alternative-fuel vehicles •Onsite resident lounge, café and free Wi-Fi in community areas for telecommuting •Onsite fitness center and yoga studio •Onsite bicycle repair station •A dedicated bike lane on Huntington Avenue. The TDM Program, together with the Project’s location near the San Bruno BART station, bicycle facilities, retail uses and neighborhood services will help reduce the need for vehicle use (and parking) by Project residents and employees. 2.4 High Quality Design The building would have a contemporary architectural style, using high-quality materials. The Project is designed to complement the surrounding commercial context in scale while providing a compatible scale to nearby single-family neighborhoods. Three distinct buildings of varying height (and number of floors) creates visual interest along the street and allows for increased open space between buildings. The increased open space provides more on-site planting and trees that help scale the buildings down to human-scale. Also, within the Project open space is a community garden that creates strong community interaction and place-making with onsite residents and adjacent neighbors. High-quality materials such as red brick (veneer) and cementitious wood siding will weather over time and provide a softer, warmer building façade that is conducive with residential architecture. A simple color scheme highlights the project’s red brick finishes and creates a timeless design. Building elements such as residential stoops, trellises, covered porches, bay windows and awnings provide human-scale elements to the buildings and a residential character to the Project. 2.5 Sustainability Measures (Green Building) The Project incorporates a number of design components and building measures that encourage sustainability, including: •It is a high-density mixed-use project located within ½ mile of the San Bruno BART station that locates 338 new apartment homes within walkable distance to grocery stores, restaurants, neighborhood services, and transit. •It replaces a vacant building that is more than 30 years old with new energy-efficient buildings. •It includes various bicycle facilities, including bicycle parking, a bicycle sharing program, a bike station, and a new bicycle lane on Huntington Avenue. •It supports pedestrians with new 8-foot minimum sidewalks along Huntington Avenue and 4-foot wide planting strips with street trees, and pedestrian scale signage and lighting and street furniture. •It provides a new community garden. •Due to its location near public transit, the project provides reduced parking. •It designates parking for EV, carpool, and other low-emissions vehicles. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 14 •It results in an increased number of trees on the site. •It provides composting and recycling services. •It provides low-impact development stormwater treatment in bioretention areas. •It includes cool roof design. 2.6 Street and Frontage Improvements As noted above, the Project includes new 8-foot minimum sidewalks along Huntington Avenue and 4-foot wide planting strips with street trees. Pedestrian scale signage, lighting and street furniture will be provided. The Project will provide a new bike lane on Huntington Avenue, and other potential traffic calming measures intended to improve the pedestrian environment and enhance the connection to the San Bruno BART station. 2.7 Infrastructure Improvements The Project would construct approximately 2,200 feet of storm drain piping and 200 feet of sanitary sewer piping, and would implement low-impact development stormwater treatment in bioretention areas. 2.8 Airport Compatibility Measures The Project proposes to (1) incorporate construction and design features to meet acoustic performance standards recommended in the February 2020 Environmental Noise Study prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. (“Salter Noise Study”) to reduce interior noise from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dB or lower; (2) grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco as operator of SFO, in accordance with ALUCP Policy NP-3, (3) Execute an indemnification agreement with the City prior to issuance of building permits, ensuring that liability related to noise is assumed by the project, and (4) include real estate disclosures in leases disclosing the presence of SFO within two miles of the Project Site, per Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 11 3.0 INITIAL STUDY/CHECKLIST 3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources AESTHETICS Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, except as provided in Public Resources Code 21099, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs6 Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐☐☐☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☐☐☐☒ c)In a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ☐☐☐☒ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a.The GPA EIR identifies that new development could affect scenic views of San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill from some viewpoints in the area. The Amendment allows buildings along El Camino Real up to 80 feet in height, consistent with El Camino Real north of the Planning Area, and up to 120 feet with a Conditional Use Permit, through the incentives program. However, according to the GPA EIR, General Plan policies and the 6 Please see Section 1.0, Introduction, for further information regarding the standards in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15162. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 12 development standards based on policies in the Amendment that minimize bulk at higher levels of buildings by requiring step-backs for development exceeding 35 feet in height, will help ensure that views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains will be available. As such, according to the GPA EIR, compliance with the City’s Zoning Code, the existing General Plan policies, the Amendment policies, and design guidelines would ensure a less than significant impact on scenic views of Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain. (GPA EIR, p. 3.7-7.) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policy 3.4-G-5, Policy 3.4-I-22, Policy 3.4-I-23, and Policy 3.4-I-26. See Exhibit C, for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. The Project complies with the General Plan and Amendment policies designed to protect scenic vistas and includes five stories at approximately 60 feet, which is allowed under the Amendment and Zoning Code designations’ maximum base height limit of 80 feet on the Project site, or 120 feet with approval of a Conditional Use Permit for increased height, with incentives. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis contained in the GPA EIR, the Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to scenic vistas compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas. b.According to the GPA EIR, the Planning Area is not visible from a State Scenic Highway. El Camino Real is a State Highway but it is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway nor is it an eligible state scenic highway.7 The Planning Area is approximately one mile to the east of U.S. Highway 101 which is not a scenic highway nor is the Planning Area visible from U.S. 101. Highway 280 is a state designated scenic highway located approximately one mile west of the Planning Area but is not visible from the Planning Area nor can the Planning Area be seen from it. As such, the GPA EIR determined the Amendment would have no impact on scenic resources, including scenic highways. (GPA EIR, p. 3.7-7.) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policy 3.4-G-5, Policy 3.4-I-22, Policy 3.4-I-23, and Policy 3.4-I-26. See Exhibit C for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. The Project is within the Planning Area and not visible from a State Scenic Highway, nor does it contain any other scenic resource. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to scenic resources, including scenic highways, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic resources, including scenic highways. c.The Amendment includes development standards for the street and building interface, land use, building height, and building setbacks, which will help minimize negative aesthetic impacts and ensure harmony with the scale and character of surrounding development. The Amendment also includes design guidelines applicable to the Planning Area that will create a more unified, pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing streetscape along the corridor. As such, the GPA EIR concludes that infill development and redevelopment, along with planned 7 Caltrans. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 13 landscape improvements, along El Camino Real in the Planning Area will have a beneficial impact on the visual and aesthetic character of El Camino Real, and less than significant impact on visual character throughout the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.7-6, 7.) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policy 3.4-G-5, Policy 3.4-I-22, Policy 3.4-I-23, and Policy 3.4-I-26. See Exhibit C, for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. Implementation of the Project is consistent with the General Plan’s aesthetic vision for the urban Project site, and the Project would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality. The Project would replace a vacant, car-oriented use (multiplex movie theatre and surface parking lot) with residential and other active uses that would activate Huntington Avenue, consistent with the General Plan and Amendment’s goal to create a walkable, pedestrian-oriented area. This goal also is supported by the Project’s proposed construction of significant pedestrian and streetscape enhancements along Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue. The Project would be subject to the Amendment’s design guidelines, which ensure conformity with the General Plan and Amendment’s vision. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to visual character compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to visual character. d.According to the GPA EIR, the Planning Area is highly developed and has a number of existing light sources. The General Plan allows residential and commercial uses, which the GPA EIR found may increase the amount of nighttime lighting. Nighttime lighting impacts are significant when they interfere with or intrude into neighboring residences. Light pollution is typically related to the use of high voltage light fixtures with inadequate shields and improper positioning or orientation. The GPA EIR found that compliance with the City’s Zoning Code, which contains general standards for lighting, including standards that control outdoor artificial light, would reduce potentially significant long-term light and glare impacts to less than significant levels. (GPA EIR, p. 3.7-8.) The Project has been designed to adhere to the City’s requirements regarding lighting and architectural materials. In addition, the Project is consistent with the massing allowed under the General Plan and Zoning Code. Therefore, no new sources of substantial light or glare not evaluated by the GPA EIR would result from implementation of the Project. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to light or glare compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to light or glare. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 14 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs (a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? ☐☐☐☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐☐☐☒ c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)). ☐☐☐☒ d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐☐☐☒ e)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a, b, e. (Farmland) As described in the GPA EIR, the Planning Area does not contain agricultural land within its limits; thus, it does not contain any Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance and there are no parcels classified as Williamson Act contract lands. Therefore, development 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 15 with in the Planning Area would have no impact on any agricultural resources. (GPA EIR, p. 3.8-7.) The Project site is located in an urbanized area and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation. There are no Williamson Act contracts covering the Project site and it is not zoned for agricultural uses. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred in the Planning Area since the certification of the GPA EIR. Therefore, the Project would not involve direct or indirect conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use and would have no impact on agricultural resources, consistent with the conclusions of the GPA EIR. c, d, e. (Forestland) The Project site is located in an urbanized area and is not designated as forestland, timberland, or zoned for forestland or timberland. There is no timber production in the vicinity of the Project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred in the Planning Area since the certification of the GPA EIR. Therefore, the Project would have no impacts related to forestland, consistent with the conclusions of the GPA EIR. 3.3 Air Quality AIR QUALITY. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐☐☐☒ b)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ☐☐☐☒ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐☐☐☒ d)Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐☐☐☒ 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 16 Documentation: a.The PBA EIR analyzed impacts related to consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, in addition to the then-most recent draft of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The PBA EIR found that consistent with the Clean Air Plans, the Plan Bay Area is based on the goals of reducing emissions of Greenhouse Gases (“GHGs”) from the transportation sector, reducing VMT on a per-capita basis, and focusing growth in areas that are well -served by transit and existing infrastructure. The PBA EIR concluded that because the Plan Bay Area would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the primary goals, applicable control measures, or implementation of any control measures of an applicable air quality plan, the impact would be less than significant. (PBA EIR, pp. 2.2-26 to 32.)8 The Project is consistent with the type of development analyzed in the PBA EIR. See the Land Use and Planning section of this ECA for an analysis of the Project’s consistency with Plan Bay Area, and as noted above, the Project is consistent with all relevant and applicable General Plan policies that reduce impacts. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the PBA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to consistency with the 2010 and 2017 Clean Air Plans compared to those analyzed in the PBA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the PBA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the PBA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to consistency with the 2010 and 2017 Clean Air Plan. As such, the Project is covered by the PBA EIR analysis that found impacts related to consistency with the Clean Air Plan to be less than significant. b. The GPA EIR uses Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) thresholds for construction- related impacts, which would be less than significant if the required dust-control measures are implemented. BAAQMD also enforces regulations regarding the demolition, renovation, and removal of asbestos. The General Plan Policy 7.3-I-3 requires that BAAQMD dust abatement actions are implemented at all construction sites. The GPA EIR therefore concludes that the Amendment would result in less than significant air quality impacts related to construction standards. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.3-23 to 24.) The GPA EIR also states that with respect to the operational phase of the Amendment, BAAQMD Regulation 2 Permits would apply to new or modified stationary sources proposed in the Planning Area and acknowledges that under the Amendment, new industrial uses would not be permitted in the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.3-12 and 24.) The Project is consistent with the development standards of the Amendment and would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local air quality regulations, including compliance with Policy 7.3-I-3, which requires projects to incorporate BAAQMD’s recommended Best Management Practices (“BMP”) during 8 Conversely, while the Amendment somewhat closes the gap in growth rates by adding population without significant change in the VMT, overall VMT for the City still grows at a faster rate than population. Accordingly, the GPA EIR concludes that as part of the larger General Plan, the Amendment is inherently part of a significant impact. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.3-17 to 23.) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policy 3.4-G-5, Policy 3.4-I-17, Policy 3.4-I-18, Policy 3.4-I-20, Policy 3.4-I-22, Policy 3.4-I-23, Policy 3.4-I-24, Policy 3.4-I-25, Policy 3.4-I-27, Policy 3.4-I-28, Policy 3.4- I-29. See Exhibit C for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. Notwithstanding the above, the City concludes that the conclusion reached in the Plan Bay Area EIR is most applicable to this Project. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 17 construction to ensure that the Project would not exceed the significance threshold for construction projects. These BMPs would be included as a standard City Condition of Approval and are listed in Table AQ-1 below. In addition, the Project would need to comply with the generally applicable state requirement for construction equipment to meet California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) Tier 3 engine requirements as well as the BAAQMD regulations listed in Table AQ-2 below. Further, the Project does not include operation of any stationary sources that would require a BAAQMD Regulation 2 Permit. The Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR and is further consistent with all more recent and stringent requirements with regard to construction emissions, including state and regional requirements, it therefore would not result in any new or more significant air quality impacts related to operation and construction than compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts related to construction and operation. TABL E AQ -1 BAAQMD BASIC AND ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MEASURES BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. BAAQMD Additional Construction Mitigation Measures 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Windbreaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 18 5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. 9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to 2 minutes. 10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 11. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 12. Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. 13. Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard (Tier 3) for off- road heavy-duty diesel engines. TABLE AQ-2 ADDITIONAL BAAQMD REGULATIONS BAAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Requirements. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures during demolition and construction to reduce TAC emissions: Notify BAAQMD at least ten business days before any demolition activities. The purpose of the notification process is to assure that buildings are demolished in compliance with procedures that assure asbestos is not released into the environment. Require surveys and removal of lead-based paints by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment, public health, and safety. BAAQMD Architectural Coating Requirement. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs): Use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces. BAAQMD Hearth Emissions. If fireplaces or wood burning stoves are installed in new residential units, require cleaner-burning (e.g., natural gas or propane) USEPA-certified stoves and inserts. c.The GPA EIR states that construction activities under the Amendment would occur intermittently at different sites in the Planning Area throughout the period of implementation of the Amendment. However, the GPA EIR describes how the existing General Plan policies and City construction and permitting procedures would ensure that air pollution emissions from construction will be less than significant, as described in the above discussion regarding impacts to sensitive receptors related to construction. In addition, under the 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 19 Amendment, new industrial uses would not be permitted in the Planning Area, so no sensitive receptors would be exposed to potential air pollution emissions from new industrial operations. Accordingly, the GPA EIR concludes that the Amendment would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive receptors. (GPA EIR, p. 3.3-24.) The Project would be subject to these identified Amendment policies, in addition to the BAAQMD and state regulations as described above in the discussion about air quality impacts related to construction. The Project does not include any stationary sources, and would not increase traffic volumes to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing of pollutants and atmosphere is substantially limited (i.e., an enclosed parking structure), which are the screening levels BAAQMD uses to determine if a project would contribute to CO hotspots that can cause impacts to sensitive receptors near high-volume roadways and other major transportation infrastructure. Further, there are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the Project Site. As previously discussed, the project is a redevelopment of a former movie theater site, and the site is surrounded by commercial land uses, including shopping centers and office buildings. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to sensitive receptors compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change their conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to sensitive receptors. The PBA EIR also analyzes impacts related to cumulative net increase in emissions of toxic air contaminants (“TAC”). Specifically, it states that it is estimated that implementation of the Plan Bay Area would result in a net increase in VMT; however, there would be a 93 percent decrease in diesel PM, a 65 percent decrease in 1,3-butadiene, and a 65 percent decrease in benzene compared to existing conditions, which can be attributed to CARB regulations that control TACs and other state regulations that reduce smog or other pollutants. As such the PBA EIR determined that the Plan Bay Area would result in less than significant impacts related to TACs. The Project is consistent with the type of development analyzed in the PBA EIR, would not include the installation or operation of any new sources of TACs, and is subject to all applicable requirements to ensure the avoidance of significant TAC impacts during construction, including State requirement and local regulations and standard conditions. See the Land Use and Planning section of this ECA for an analysis of the Project’s consistency with Plan Bay Area. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the PBA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to TACs than compared to those analyzed in the PBA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the PBA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the PBA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to TACs. Further, we note that to the extent this Consistency Checklist considers air-quality issues in relation to future residents of the Project, it does so for informational purposes only pursuant to the judicial decisions in CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 and Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473, which confirm that the impacts of the environment on a project are excluded from CEQA unless the project itself “exacerbates” such impacts. As such, any air quality impact on the future residents of the Project is not an impact under CEQA. d.The GPA EIR states that future land uses under the Amendment include commercial and residential land 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 20 uses, and would not permit industrial uses, including commercial uses related to automobiles. As such, the GPA EIR finds that no emissions that create odors are anticipated under the Amendment, and thus impacts related to these emissions would be less than significant. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.3-24 to 25.) The Project does not propose uses typically associated with emissions that create objectionable odors, such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, chemical manufacturing plants, rendering plants, paint/coating operations, asphalt batch plants, agricultural feedlots, and dairies. Instead the Project would consist of predominantly residential uses with active uses on the ground floor frontage along Huntington Avenue. The Project contains a café, but would not contain uses that would cause objectionable odors. As part of standard project review, equipment used for outdoor food preparation (courtyard) and the outdoor fireplace (courtyard) would be subject to City approval for safety and odor control. The Project will also be required to comply with zoning standards related to odors. Furthermore, the Project will accommodate refuse and recycling in an enclosed trash room at the street level. Refuse and recycling pick-up would be provided by a local waste service provider and would occur on a weekly basis. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to emissions causing odors compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to emissions causing odors. 3.4 Biological Resources BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐☐☐☒ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ☐☐☐☒ 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 21 identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐☐☐☒ d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☐☐☐☒ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐☐☐☒ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a.The GPA EIR does not find any impacts to special-status species within the Planning Area. The Planning Area is urbanized, and is primarily developed with commercial uses, with a small amount of vacant land that is generally paved with concrete and asphalt. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-2) Although a portion of Colma Creek is located in the area, it is completely channelized and lined with concrete sides, with no aquatic vegetation present and is not suitable to support special-status aquatic species. There are no known riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or wildlife corridors within the Planning Area. Additionally, the Planning Area is not within the area covered by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 22 (GPA EIR, pp. 3.9-2, 3.9-7) However, according to the California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”), three special-status species have the potential to occur within the Planning Area, and their actual potential to occur is therefore studied in the GPA EIR. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-2) The San Francisco garter snake is both federally and state listed as endangered, and the closest reported population is outside of the Planning area, east of 101 and south of the City. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-2) The seaside tarplant is listed as rare, threatened, or endangered in California on the CNPS lists – its habitat includes northern coastal scrub and valley grassland, and observations of it have been limited to parks and biological reserv es outside the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-2) Finally, the Alameda song sparrow is designated as a species of special concern by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and is found in relatively large marshes, of which there are none in the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-3) There have been no reported occurrences of any of these species in the Planning Area; further, the Planning Area is highly urbanized and is not near the coast, nor does it contain wetlands, marshes, or grasses that could be suitable habitat. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-6) The GPA EIR therefore concludes that there would be no impact with regard to special status species, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-6) The Project site is urbanized and in a highly disturbed area. It is currently developed with a vacant theater and surface parking, is surrounded by other urban uses, and is located within 1/2 mile of the San Bruno BART station. It has no potential habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Because the Project is consistent with the in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to special- status species, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to special- status species. b, c. The GPA EIR indicates that there are no riparian habitats or other natural communities or wetlands or Waters of the United States in the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-2) The GPA EIR therefore concludes that there would be no impact with regard to riparian habitat and wetlands, and no mitigation required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-6) The conditions on the Project site have not changed since the GPA EIR analysis was done with regard to such habitat. There are still no riparian habitats or special-status vegetation communities or wetlands or Waters of the United States in the Project site. Therefore, the Project would continue to have no impact, as disclosed in the GPA EIR. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to wetlands and riparian habitat, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to wetlands and riparian habitat. d.The GPA EIR analysis concludes that the Planning Area is highly urbanized, is not located in a migratory corridor, and that anticipated development in the Planning Area therefore would not interfere with any wildlife migration routes. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.9-2, 3.9-6) It likewise concludes that because there are no wetlands or other water features providing suitable habitat in the Planning Area, development in the Planning area would not impede the movement of any native resident or migratory fish. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.9- 2, 3.9-6) The GPA EIR concludes that there would be no impact with regard to wildlife and fish movement 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 23 and nursery use, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-6) Conditions on the Project site have not changed since the GPA EIR analysis was performed with regard to wildlife or fish movement and/or access to corridors and nursery sites. The Project site is not located within an identified corridor. In addition, the Project site is urbanized, does not provide suitable movement opportunities, and is surrounded by additional urban land uses subject to high disturbance. Construction and development associated with implementation of the Project would not occur within an area containing habitat, or wildlife corridors that support biological resources. Further, there are no watercourses on the Project site and therefore the Project would have no impact on migratory or native fish. Nevertheless, it is possible that any landscaping vegetation on the Project site could provide potential nesting habitat for migratory birds. If Project vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with generally applicable regulations in the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting birds from construction disturbances; compliance would be required as a standard condition of approval. Therefore, the Project would continue to have no impact on wildlife corridors and nursery sites, consistent with the conclusions in the GPA EIR. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to wildlife and fish movement and nursery use, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to wildlife and fish movement and nursery use. e.The GPA EIR analysis identifies that some tree removal may be required for development in the Planning Area, and therefore discusses the requirements of City Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, the Tree Preservation Ordinance, which would require a permit prior to the removal or alteration of a protected tree, and has replacement requirements. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-5) Because development in the Planning Area would be required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the GPA EIR concludes there would be no conflict with the ordinance and therefore no impact with regard to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-7) An arborist report was prepared for the Project, which shows that there are the type and size of trees that are protected by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. (See Exhibit F, Evaluation of Existing Trees). Development activities could involve removal or pruning of such trees. However, such activities would be required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of the Project approval process, including obtaining a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoiding tree roots during trenching for utilities. Compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance would be required as a condition of approval. Therefore, the Project remains consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR and no mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. f.As disclosed in the GPA EIR and noted above under threshold a), there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 24 conservation plan applicable to the Planning Area – the Planning Area is outside the area covered by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-7) The GPA EIR therefore determines there would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-7) Consistent with the conclusions in the GPA EIR, the Project is not within an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to the above-listed plans, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to the above-listed plans. 3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources CULTURAL and TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? ☐☐☐☒ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? ☐☐☐☒ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a.The GPA EIR notes that there are no sites in the Planning Area on the National Register of Historic Places, nor any that are listed by the Office of Preservation as a California Historic Landmark. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-9) Likewise, the Planning Area does not have any locally identified historic resources. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-9) The GPA EIR therefore concludes that there would be no impact with regard to historic resources, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-15) There have been no changes in circumstances that would affect historic resources. The vacant theater located on the Project site is not a potential historic resource, and there are no other potential historic resources on-site. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 25 change in the significance of ahistorical resource. There is no new or more significant impact on historic resources than disclosed in the GPA EIR and no new mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to historic resources, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related historic resources. b.The GPA EIR notes that while South San Francisco has Native American village sites and shell mounds scattered throughout it, there are no known archaeological resources located within the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.9-8-9, 3.9-15) However, the GPA EIR outlines state regulations that provide guidance on the steps that must be taken if significant resources are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction. Specifically, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, work would stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City and other appropriate agencies and interested parties. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA standards of significance, construction may proceed. On the other hand, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, Department of Economic and Community Development staff would be notified and a data recovery plan would be prepared. In addition, General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5 requires the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event archaeological resources are uncovered. Based on the lack of known resources, and required compliance with state law and General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5, the GPA EIR concludes that there would be no impact with regard to archaeological resources, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-15) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policy that would reduce this impact: Policy 7.5-I-5. See Exhibit C for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. There have been no changes in circumstances with respect to archaeological resources on the Project site, and there are no known archaeological resources on the Project site. As stated in the GPA EIR, should archaeological resources be encountered during ground disturbance activities for Project construction, the Project would be required to comply with state law (particularly CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.5(f) and 15126.4(b)(3)) and the City’s General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5. The Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed and analyzed in the GPA EIR, and no new mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to archaeological resources, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to archaeological resources. c.The GPA EIR notes that there are no known human remains located within the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p.3.9-15) Further, if any unknown human remains were uncovered during development of the Planning Area, a developer would have to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. GPA EIR, pp. 3.9-12, 3.9-13) PRC Section 5097.98 outlines the Native American Heritage Commission notification process and the required procedures if the County Coroner determines the human remains to 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 26 be Native American. The GPA EIR therefore concludes that there would be no impact with regard to human remains, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-15) There have been no changes in circumstances related to treatment or knowledge of human remains since preparation of the GPA EIR. The Project also would be required to comply with state law. The Project would not have any additional or more significant impact on human remains than disclosed in the GPA EIR and no new mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to human remains, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to human remains. 3.6 Energy ENERGY – Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? ☐☐☐☒ b)Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a,b. The GPA EIR states that energy use under the Amendment would be moderated by the application of State regulations, specifically AB 1493 (“Pavley”). Energy use under the Amendment, with the application of Pavley, will decrease when compared to existing conditions and will be slightly higher than the No Project Alternative, due to the increase in population. However, per capita energy use under the Amendment is expected to decrease when compared to both the existing condition and No Project Alternative. Thus, the GPA EIR concludes that the Amendment will result in a less than significant impacts related to the consumption of energy resources. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.6-17 to 19.) The Project would comply with State and local regulations for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The Project will implement green building methods that will also reduce and ensure the efficient consumption of 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 27 energy resources during construction and operation. Since the certification of the Amendment, the City has also adopted the CAP, which includes energy-reducing strategies. The Project helps the City to implement the CAP. (See discussion above regarding the Project’s consistency with the CAP.) Because the Project implements more energy-reducing measures than what was analyzed in the GPA EIR (i.e., CAP strategies), it would result in less impacts related to energy consumption compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. As such, the Project would result in less than significant impacts, and would not result in significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation. Further, it will comply with State and local requirements for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and therefore have less than significant impacts with regard to such plans. 3.7 Geology and Soils GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? ☐☐☐☒ ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐☐☐☒ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐☐☐☒ iv) Landslides?☐☐ ☐☒ b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐☐☐☒ c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ☐☐☐☒ 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 28 that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off - site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐☐☐☒ e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ☐☐☐☒ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a.(i-ii.) The GPA EIR notes that while several faults cross the Bay Area, there are no known faults in the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-17) The nearest fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is 2 miles from the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-17) However, the GPA EIR notes that structures and infrastructure in the Planning Area would likely experience at least one major earthquake during their functional lifetime. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-20) Further, while the Planning Area is not within the Earthquake Safety Zone for the San Andreas Fault (within which development is prohibited), the Planning Area would experience a shaking intensity level of IX (Violent, Heavy Damage) from a rupture of the San Andreas Fault with a 7.2 earthquake magnitude. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-17) It would also be subject to extremely high or very high levels of shaking amplification. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-17) However, as noted in the GPA EIR, any projects in the Planning Area would be required to implement the California Building Code and Chapters 19.40 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to ensure the construction of safe buildings and help prevent extensive structural damage. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-19) Chapter 19.40 requires a preliminary soils report as part of the City’s standard subdivision procedures. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-19) The GPA EIR concludes that because the project would be required to comply with the building standards in the California Building Code (contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and local requirements, the Amendment would have a less than significant impact due to fault rupture and seismic ground shaking, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-20) There have been no changes in circumstances related to this impact since preparation of the GPA EIR. The Project is not on an active fault. The Project is not subject to Chapter 19.40 of the Municipal Code.9 9 Because the Project does not include the subdivision creating 5 or more parcels, the requirements of Chapter 19.40 do not 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 29 However, the Project would be required to comply with the City and California Building Code, prepare a geotechnical report and a grading plan with its application for a grading permit10, and undergo review and approval by the City Engineer for its grading permit and Lot Merger application.11 Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not directly or indirectly result in any new or more significant impacts related to fault rupture and ground shaking, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to fault rupture and ground shaking. (iii)The GPA EIR states that structures and infrastructure in the Planning Area would likely experience at least one major earthquake during their functional lifetime, and may therefore be susceptible to secondary seismic hazards including liquefaction. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-20) Liquefaction susceptibility maps prepared by ABAG indicate that the majority of the Planning Area has a liquefaction hazard of very low. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.9-20, 3.9-21) Liquefaction-induced ground failure can result in damage to underground utilities, shallow foundations, and paved areas. The GPA EIR notes that all projects in the Planning Area would need to comply with the California Building Code as well as Chapter 19.40 of the City’s Municipal Code to ensure less than significant adverse impacts with regard to potential liquefaction. Chapter 19.40 requires a preliminary soils report using the City’s standard subdivision procedure. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-19) The GPA EIR concludes that compliance with existing building codes and construction standards would reduce seismic- related liquefaction impacts to a less than significant level, and that no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.9-20, 3.9-21) There have been no changes in circumstances with regard to liquefaction since the preparation of the GPA EIR. The Project is not subject to Chapter 19.40 of the Municipal Code.12 However, the Project would be required to comply with the City and California Building Code, prepare a geotechnical report and a grading plan with its application for a grading permit13, and undergo review and approval by the City Engineer for its grading permit and Lot Merger application.14 Because the Project is consistent with the analysis i n the GPA EIR, it would not directly or indirectly result in any new or more significant impacts related to liquefaction, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to liquefaction. (iv )The GPA EIR notes that the Planning Area is designated "flatland” by ABAG, and therefore concludes that there is no landslide hazard in the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) There have been no changes in circumstances since the preparation of the GPA EIR that would alter these apply to the Project. (Municipal Code § 19.32.010; 19.32.020) 10 See Grading Permit application, available at http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=2356. 11 Municipal Code § 19.48.180. 12 Because the Project does not include the subdivision creating 5 or more parcels, the requirements of Chapter 19.40 do not apply to the Project. (Municipal Code § 19.32.010; 19.32.020) 13 See Grading Permit application, available at http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=2356. 14 Municipal Code § 19.48.180. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 30 conclusions. Because the Project is not in a location subject to slope instability, it would have no impacts related to landslides, and no new mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA E IR, it would not directly or indirectly result in any new or more significant impacts related to landslides, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to landslides. b.The GPA EIR evaluated whether there is significant risk of development in the Planning Area resulting in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. As noted in the GPA EIR, erosion hazards are highest during construction activities such as excavation, backfilling, grading, and demolition, which can remove stabilizing vegetation and expose areas of loose soils that, if not properly stabilized during construction, could be subject to soil loss and erosion by wind and stormwater runoff. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) The GPA EIR outlines policies required in the City’s Municipal Code for compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit requirements, as well as the requirement for submittal of a preliminary soils report with a subdivision application and/or soils engineering report with a grading application. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) Compliance with the NPDES permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for properties larger than one acre, to minimize the discharge of pollutants, including silt and sediment, during construction. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) Any required preliminary soils report and soils engineering report would also both contain recommendations for avoidance of adverse impacts. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) The GPA EIR therefore determines that mandatory compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and NPDES General Construction Permit requirements would result in less than significant impacts with regard to soil erosion, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-22) There have been no changes in circumstances that would change this impact analysis since the GPA EIR were prepared. While Project development would disturb soil, it would likewise be subject to NPDES permit requirements and therefore be required by federal law to prepare and implement an approved SWPPP that would include measures to control erosion and effectively manage runoff and retain sediment on-site during construction. The Project is not subject to Chapter 19.40 of the Municipal Code.15 However, the Project would be required to comply with the City and California Building Code, prepare a geotechnical report and a grading plan with its application for a grading permit 16, and undergo review and approval by the City Engineer for its grading permit and Lot Merger application.17 Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil. c., d. The GPA EIR notes that due to the variability of soils in the Planning Area, it is possible that future development could be subject to soil expansion and settlement. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) If not properly engineered, loose, soft, soils composed of sand, silt, and clay have the potential to settle after a building or 15 Because the Project does not include the subdivision creating 5 or more parcels, the requirements of Chapter 19.40 do not apply to the Project. (Municipal Code § 19.32.010; 19.32.020) 16 See Grading Permit application, available at http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=2356. 17 Municipal Code § 19.48.180. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 31 other load is placed on the surface; differential settlement of loose soils would be a concern in areas that have no previously supported structures and where new structures would place loads heavier than the soils could tolerate. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) The GPA EIR outlines provisions in the South San Francisco Municipal Code for development that require the preparation of a site-specific preliminary soil s report for a subdivision application and soils engineering report with an application for a grading permit, which would contain recommendations to ensure the reduction of hazards related to expansive or unstable soils. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-21) The GPA EIR therefore concluded that compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level with regard to soil expansion and settlement, and there is no mitigation required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-22) See discussion under threshold a) with regard to landslide and liquefaction hazards. No changes in circumstances have occurred since the preparation of the GPA EIR that would change the impact analysis. The Project is not subject to Chapter 19.40 of the Municipal Code.18 However, the Project would be required to comply with the City and California Building Code, prepare a geotechnical report and a grading plan with its application for a grading permit 19, and undergo review and approval by the City Engineer for its grading permit and Lot Merger application.20 Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to soil expansion and settlement, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to soil expansion and settlement. e. The GPA EIR concludes there will be no impact with respect to use of septic tanks, because the Planning Area is served by the municipal sewer system. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-22) No changes in circumstances have occurred since preparation of the GPA EIR related to the use of septic tanks. The Project would not use septic tanks because it would be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system, which has adequate capacity to serve the Project. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to septic tanks, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to septic tanks. f.The GPA EIR determines that future development in the Planning Area would not have any impact on paleontological resources (p. 3.4-15). The GPA EIR analysis states that according to the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), South San Francisco contains a record for Equus, which includes horses, donkeys, and zebras; However, the lithology of the record indicates that the fossil is most likely found in the San Bruno Mountains or near the Bay, both outside the Planning Area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9- 15) The GPA EIR further discloses that in the event any unanticipated paleontological resources are encountered during individual project development, the developer would be prohibited from damaging or 18 Because the Project does not include the subdivision creating 5 or more parcels, the requirements of Chapter 19.40 do not apply to the Project. (Municipal Code § 19.32.010; 19.32.020) 19 See Grading Permit application, available at http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=2356. 20 Municipal Code § 19.48.180. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 32 removing the resource per Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, with penalties contained in California Penal Code Section 622.5. The GPA EIR therefore concludes that there would be no impact with regard to damage to paleontological resources, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-15) There have been no changes in circumstances related to paleontological resources, and the Project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known paleontological resources because no such resources existing in the Project vicinity. Further, compliance with state law would ensure no impact. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to paleontological resources, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to paleontological resources. 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS & ENERGY. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐☐☒☐ b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐☒☐☐ Documentation: a.The PBA EIR analyzed the net increase in direct and indirect Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) emissions in 2040 when compared to existing conditions, and concluded that implementation of the Plan Bay Area would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions in 2040 when compared to existing conditions, and thus would result in less than significant impacts. (PBA EIR, pp. 2.5- 37 to 41.) Further, the PBA EIR analyzed the per capita passenger vehicle and light duty truck CO2 emissions, and concluded that because implementation of projected development projects under the Plan Bay Area would reduce per capita passenger vehicle and light duty truck CO2 emissions by over seven percent by 2020 and by over 15 percent by 2035 as compared to 2005 baseline, per SB 375, there would be a less than significant impact related to these emissions. (PBA EIR, pp. 2.5- 36 to 37.) 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 33 The GPA EIR found that emissions reductions as a result of State programs pursuant to Assembly Bill (“AB”) 32 will result in 2020 emission levels that are below existing condition levels under both the No Project and the Amendment. While total emissions are slightly lower in the No Project Alternative than under the Amendment, per capita emissions are lower with the Amendment, indicating a more efficient accommodation of growth in the Amendment. Due to emission reductions that would result from State regulations and the implementation of the Amendment (i.e., introduction of mixed-uses at high intensity/density with incentives programs that target GHG-reducing measures and promotion of pedestrian-oriented design) emissions in 2020 would not exceed existing levels. In addition, per capita emissi ons are lower with the Amendment when compared to existing conditions and the No Project condition. While regional GHG emissions are on the whole a significant cumulative impact, these comparisons indicate that the Amendment does not make a considerable contribution to the impact. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.6-20 to 25.) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: 3.4-G-5, 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.4-I-19, 3.4-I-20, 3.4-I-23, and 3.4-I-26. See Exhibit B for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. This analysis concludes that the Project is covered by and consistent with the PBA EIR’s conclusion of less than significant impacts. The Project is consistent with the type of development analyzed in the PBA EIR. The Project is consistent with Plan Bay Area, which is intended to reduce regional GHG emissions. The Project is located entirely within the City’s El Camino Real Priority Development Area (“PDA”) under the Plan Bay Area, which is designated as Mixed-Use Corridor. The Mixed-Use Corridor permits mid and low- rise residential buildings; townhomes; small lot single family adjacent to corridor; local retail in individual or mixed-use buildings. The Plan Bay Area forecasts that within this PDA population will increase by 10,355 by 2040 compared to 2010; and the number of households will increase by 3,517. The Project proposes uses permitted by Plan Bay Area and would add 338 new households with a relative increase in population, consistent with the forecasts of the Plan Bay Area for the City’s El Camino Real PDA. The Project is also consistent with Plan Bay Area’s goal to encourage mixed-use development in proximity to transit options. The Project will implement GHG-reducing measures provided under the Amendment’s incentive program for increased density, intensity, and height. First, it will provide a Transportation Demand Management Program that will reduce GHG emissions related to transportation by encouraging use of the adjacent San Bruno BART and Caltrain Stations and other modes of transportation, including cycling and walking. Additionally, the Project will implement green building methods that will reduce energy and water use, and high-quality design and infrastructure improvements, such as sidewalk widening and planting street trees that will promote pedestrian activity. (See discussion below regarding the Amendment and Project’s consistency with the City’s 2014 Climate Action Plan and Plan Bay Area, which were adopted after the certification of the GPA EIR.) Further, the Project will comply with all applicable federal and state GHG emission reduction measures. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the PBA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to GHG emissions related to cars and light trucks and to those related to 2040 GHG emission projections compared to those analyzed in the PBA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the PBA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the PBA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to cars and light trucks and to those related to 2040 GHG emission projections. Additionally, as a project that implements the Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5, the Project qualifies for streamlining under the same Section. See Exhibit E, 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 34 CAP GHG-Reducing Strategies. Therefore, due to the Project’s compliance with the mandatory and nonbinding measures of the City’s CAP, the Project will result in less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions. (See Other Available CEQA Exemptions and Streamlining Options sectio n of this ECA.) For the above reasons, it is concluded that this project would have less than significant impacts. b.The GPA EIR noted that in 2009 when the GPA EIR was being drafted the City did not have an adopted policy or plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions, though the City was in the process of establishing a baseline government emissions inventory and was planning a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. As such the GPA EIR relies on consistency with all actions in the Scoping Plan developed by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) under AB 32, resulting in a less than significant impact related to existing GHG plans, policies and regulations. (GPA EIR, p. 3.6-25.) Since the certification of the GPA EIR there have been several regulatory changes that reduce GHG emissions, including, ABAG’s adoption of Plan Bay Area, the region’s SCS/RTP under SB 743. The PBA EIR analyzes impacts related to consistency with the State’s GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The PBA EIR concludes that mitigation, via Climate Action Plans (“CAP”) for individual jurisdictions or other GHG-reduction programs are required to meet the goals needed to attain the 2030 targets. Thus, compliance with PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3 (see below), which requires the development of CAPs throughout the Bay Area, would be needed to assure mitigation to a less than significant level. PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3: Consistent with the recommendations in the Draft 2017 Scoping Plan, implementing agencies and/or project sponsors shall implement measures, where feasible and necessary based on project- and site-specific considerations that include, but are not limited to: •MTC and ABAG, in partnership with the BAAQMD, shall work with the counties and cities in the Bay Area to adopt qualified GHG reduction plans (e.g., CAPs). The CAPs can be regional or adopted by individual jurisdictions, so long as they meet the standards of a GHG reduction program as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. At the regional level, the cumulative emissions reduction of individual CAPs within the region or a regional CAP should demonstrate an additional Bay Area-wide reduction of 24 MMTCO2e from land uses and on- road transportation compared with projected 2040 emissions levels already expected to be achieved by the Plan. (This is based on the 2015 Bay Area land use and on-road transportation emissions of 52 MMTCO2e, an interpolated statewide GHG reduction target of 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2040, and a two percent increase in statewide emissions between 1990 and 2015). The CAP(s) should also show a commitment to achieving a downward trajectory in emissions post-2040 to meet statewide goals of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, per S-03-05. These reductions can be achieved through a combination of programs, including ZNE in new construction, retrofits of existing buildings, incentivizing and development of renewable energy sources that serve both new and existing land uses, and other measures so long as the overall 32 MMTCO2e reduction (by 2040) can be demonstrated. This target can be adjusted if statewide legislation or regulations would reduce GHG emissions, so long as a trajectory to achieve this target in the Bay Area is maintained. As described above, the Project is consistent with the Plan Bay Area and the type of development analyzed 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 35 in the PBA EIR. Since the certification of the GPA EIR, the City adopted a CAP in February of 2014 (“the CAP”)21. The CAP is a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy under CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5, and was adopted along with a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”).22 Strategies in the CAP build on the City’s work to reduce air pollution, decrease waste, provide a range of commute and circulation options, improve the energy efficiency of buildings, and develop access to reliable, clean, and affordable energy. The CAP also outlines the City’s strategy to adapt to changing climate by protecting the built environment, public health, and natural resources from vulnerabilities caused by changing climate conditions. The CAP quantifies the City’s contribution of GHG emissions in 2005, the baseline year, and reductions from the CAP’s strategies and other GHG-reducing programs. Specifically, the CAP found that existing actions, state programs, and GHG reduction measures in the CAP are estimated to reduce GHG emissions in the City by 116,040 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (“MTCO2e”) by 2020 and by 191,540 MTCO2e by 2035, achieving the AB 32 reduction target of 15 percent below baseline 2005 levels by 2020. The CAP recognizes that local governments play the primary role in reducing GHG emissions and mitigating impacts of climate change, but that the City will only achieve the goals in the CAP through partnership with the broader community. Accordingly, the CAP states that the business community, residents, and other stakeholders and members of the public use the CAP to identify programs and opportunities or learn about local conditions and priorities. Because the City has adopted a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy under CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5, the Project m ay also rely on the CAP’s MND, which found the implementation of the CAP would result in less than significant impacts related to GHG. (CAP MND, p. 24.) The Project helps the City im plement the CAP in a number of ways. For example, the Project improves access to local and regional transit services by pl acing 338 new residential units within 1/2 mile of the San Bruno BART and one mile of the San Bruno Caltrain Station and within 1/4 mile of El Camino Real, which provides numerous alternative modes of transportation such as bus lines and bike lanes. The Project promotes alternative means of transportation through increased access to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and implementation of a TDM Program. The Project will also implement green building measures that will reduce energy and water use. See Exhibit E, Climate Action Plan Checklist. However, it is noted that the above MM 2.5-3 requires local GHG Reduction Plans that ensure compliance with the State’s SB 32 goal of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The City’s CAP is not consistent with MM 2.5-3, and the City therefore finds that the PBA EIR’s conclusion of significant and unavoidable impacts (PBA EIR page 2.5-44) is appropriate.23 Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the PBA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to conflicts with GHG-reducing plans, regulations, and policies compared to those analyzed in the PBA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the PBA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the PBA EIR, the Project would help ensure the City’s compliance with its CAP, but because it is inconsistent with PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.5-3, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to conflicts with GHG-reducing plans, regulations, and policies as concluded in the PBA EIR. 21 Available at http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=5640. 22 Available at http://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=51192&dbid=0. 23 The City is currently updating the General Plan (https://shapessf.com/), and will be adopting a new CAP as part of this process. The updated CAP will be compliant with all current state regulations related to reducing GHGs. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 36 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐☐☐☒ b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ☐☐☐☒ c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐☐☐☒ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ☐☐☐☒ e)For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? ☐☐☐☒ f)Impair implementation of or ☐☐ ☐☒ 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 37 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a, b. The Amendment’s General Plan and Zoning land use designations would limit development to commercial and residential uses, and would prohibit commercial uses involving hazardous materials handlers (e.g., auto repair/vehicle service). Accordingly, the GPA EIR concludes that the Amendment would result in no impact related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-28.) The Project includes residential and other active uses, which are permitted by the Amendment’s land use designation for the Project site. These uses do not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and will not result in reasonably foreseeable upset or accident involving hazardous materials. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident involving hazardous materials. c.The GPA EIR notes there are four schools within a quarter mile of the Planning Area: South San Francisco High School, Ponderosa Elementary School, Los Cerritos Elementary School and Baden High School. However, the Amendment’s General Plan and Zoning Code land use designations would limit development to commercial and residential uses, and would prohibit commercial uses involving hazardous materials handlers (e.g., auto repair/vehicle service). Accordingly, the GPA EIR concludes that the Amendment would result in no impact related to the emission or handling of hazardous materials within a quarter-mile of a school. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-28.) The Project includes residential and other active uses, which are permitted by the Amendment’s land use designation for the Project site. These uses do not involve risk of emissions of hazardous materials. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to the emission of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to the emission of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. d.The GPA EIR states that the Planning Area does not contain any sites listed on the Department of Toxic 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 38 Substances Control’s Cortese List, and concludes that the Amendment would result in less than significant impacts related to being located on a site included in the Cortese List. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-28.) A Phase I Environmental Assessment was prepared for the Project, and it concluded that no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (“REC”) was observed on the Site or adjoining properties during the site reconnaissance; no REC were identified during historical research; and no facility on the Property or on the adjacent properties are considered REC based on their distance and regulatory status. (See Exhibit G, Fugro, Phase I, Environmental Site Assessment Executive Summary - 410 Noor Avenue.) The Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, and is subject to all applicable standard conditions and regulatory requirements with regard to subsurface contamination and groundwater. New information made available (i.e., a search of the State’s databases, and a Phase I ESA) confirms that no changes have occurred since the certification of the GPA EIR. As such, the Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to being located on a site included in the Cortese List, and no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to being located on a site included in the Cortese List. e.The GPA EIR notes that the Planning Area is located north of San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 3.12 (Noise) of this ECA, the Project is located within the 65-70 dB CNEL, will comply with all of the ALUCP’s requirements for conditionally compatible projects (including the reduction of interior noise from external sources to less than 45 dB) which will reduce any hazards related to airport noise. The Project is within the SFO ALUCP Airport Influence Area (“AIA”) A and B. (ALUCP, Exhibits IV-1 and IV-3.) AIA A requires certain real estate disclosures, which are being proposed by the Project. AIA B triggers the ALUC authority to make consistency determinations for certain land use actions, the Project will be submitted to the ALUC for a consistency determination. A small portion of the Project site is located within Safety Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone. (ALUCP, Exhibit IV -8.) This Safety Zone prohibits the following types of uses: biosafety facilities, schools, child day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, and arenas. Because the Project consists of residential and other active uses, it is compatible with the ALUCP Safety Zone requirements. Per ALUCP Exhibit IV-14 “14 CFR Part 77 Airport Imaginary Surfaces – North Side”, the height for the imaginary surface established for the horizontal surface at the site location is 163.2 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The proposed project parcels are located at between 35 and 48 feet above MSL. The proposed buildings at the 410 Noor project site are designed to be constructed at a maximum building height of 59 feet above ground level. Maximum structure heights would be approximately 94 to 107 feet above MSL. A structure built at a maximum of 107 feet above MSL would be well below the imaginary surface height established. Based on the proposed project’s maximum height of 107 feet above MSL, no additional safety requirements are anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the airspace policies as established in the adopted 2012 SFO ALUCP. An airspace analysis and obstruction evaluation study was completed by Williams Aviation Consultants. The study contains the following conclusion regarding building heights: At the study location, the proposed 3, 4, and 5 story buildings, with a ground elevation of approximately 50' AMSL, will not penetrate the Horizontal Surface at SFO, if the overall total height of the proposed buildings stay below 163' AMSL. In addition, per ALUCP Policy A4, proposed land uses with characteristics that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft taking off or landing at the Airport or in flight 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 39 are incompatible in Area B of the Airport Influence Area. As a mixed-use residential project, the 410 Noor proposal does not contain any characteristics that would cause these hazards. The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (Section 20.300.010) contains performance standards to ensure that all development protects the community from nuisances, hazards and objectionable conditions, including those which could be aircraft hazards, including light, glare, air contaminants, or electromagnetic interference. As proposed, the 410 Noor project is consistent with the performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, and would not create an aircraft hazard. Because the Project is consistent with ALUCP Safety Zone requirements and the FAA regulations regarding height, it would not result in any new or more significant air hazard impacts related to height compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no air hazard impacts related to Safety Zones and height. For additional discussion of air hazard impacts related to noise, see the Land Use and Planning and the Noise section of this ECA, respectively. f.The GPA EIR states that the Planning Area is not subject to any emergency response or evacuation plans and that the Amendment would not block access to roadways or on-site emergency vehicle access. As such, the GPA EIR concluded that the Amendment would result in no impacts related to emergency response or excavation plans. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-29.) The Project site is within the Planning Area and thus is not subject to any emergency response or evacuation plans. The Project site has three driveways and public roadways on two sides to facilitate emergency vehicle access and fire vehicle access, and the Project does not propose any changes to roadways. Finally, the Project will also comply with any applicable City regulations and generally applicable conditions of approval related to emergency access. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to emergency response or evacuation plans compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to emergency response or evacuation plans. g.The GPA EIR states that there is no wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the Planning Area, which is not within a fire hazard management unit. The GPA EIR therefore concludes that the Amendment would result in no impact. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-29.) The Project site is located within the Planning Area and thus is not within a fire hazard management unit. Instead, the Project site is an urban infill site not adjacent to wildlands. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to wildfire hazards compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to wildfire hazards. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 40 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface of ground water quality? ☐☐☐☒ b)Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ☐☐☐☒ c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would ☐☐☐☒ (i)result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ☐☐☐☒ (ii)substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ☐☐☐☒ (iii)create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ☐☐☐☒ (iv)Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐☐☐☒ d)In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of ☐☐☐☒ 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 41 pollutants due to project inundation? e) conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a, e. The GPA EIR describes the requirements applicable to construction activities on one acre or more that are contained in the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (“General Construction Permit”), including the requirement to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”), which must contain Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) that will control degradation of surface waters by preventing soil erosion or the discharge of pollutants from the construction area, post-construction controls, and non-stormwater management measures. The GPA EIR concludes that adherence to the requirements of the Construction General Permit, in addition to federal, state, and local laws, would ensure that the Amendment’s impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-35.) The Project involves construction on more than one acre, and thus will be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations listed above, including the requirement to implement the SWPPP, that ensure that both the construction of the project and its operation will not cause a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project will contain all BMPs and is also subject to all standard conditions that ensure less than significant impacts. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant water quality impacts related to waste discharges compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant water quality impacts related to waste discharges, and would not otherwise substantially degrade surface of ground water quality – see also the discussion below under b) with regard to groundwater. b. The GPA EIR explains that recharge is generally concentrated in the immediate near-stream areas where open space is present, and that the Planning Area is built-out and mainly consists of impermeable surface area. Further, future development would rely on water service from the California Water Service Company to the Planning Area. The GPA EIR therefore concludes that the Amendment would result in less than significant impacts related to groundwater supply. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-35.) The Project is located on an urban infill site consisting of impermeable surface, and will receive its water supply from the California Water Service Company, the local provider. To the extent that the project requires underground pumping or ongoing dewatering related to the underground parking garages, the project will be constructed and operated in accordance with all state and local regulations related to groundwater supply and quality. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to groundwater supply compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 42 result in less than significant impacts related to groundwater supply and basin management. c. The GPA EIR states that the Planning Area is built-out and currently served by municipal storm sewers. Further, the majority of the Planning Area is developed with impervious surfaces including buildings, parking lots, and associated walkways and driveways. Given the amount of impervious surface on the site, the GPA EIR concludes that the Amendment would not result in a substantial physical change with respect to drainage patterns, and that impacts on existing drainage patterns would be less than significant. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9- 35.) The GPA EIR further states that future development will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the City’s Storm Water Coordinator. SWPPP must also be submitted to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction. See discussion above regarding SWPPP requirements. The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control Division conduct routine inspections to insure compliance with SWPPP-related requirements. According to the GPA EIR, the majority of the Planning Area is developed with impervious surfaces and future development would not result in a substantial physical change with respect to runoff. Future residential development in the Planning Area will be required to have open space and landscaping, which will help potentially decrease on-site stormwater runoff. The Planning Area is located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. The Planning Area is not subject to hydromodification since the majority of Colma Creek through South San Francisco is concrete lined. Therefore, the GPA EIR concludes that policies and standards in the General Plan and Municipal Code, along with standard development conditions, will ensure that the Amendment’s impacts related to runoff would be less than significant. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-36.) The Project site in its current state is largely impervious and currently served by municipal storm sewers. As such, construction of the Project will not result in a significant net increase in impervious area. The Project will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including with all Construction General Permit Requirements including the implementation of a SWPPP (discussed above). The proposed storm drain system comprises 12” pipes, associated structures such as storm drain catch basins and manholes, bioretention areas, and mechanical treatment structures. The on-site storm drain system connects to the existing municipal storm drain system in three locations. The northern watershed and middle watershed each drain to existing catch basins on Huntington Avenue; the southern watershed drains to a catch basin on Noor Avenue. Per the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Attachment J, Transit Oriented Development projects are eligible for low impact design treatment reduction credits. This project is classified as transit-oriented and qualifies for an LID treatment reduction credit of 65% for the northern lot, and 90% for the southern lot. The project is therefore treating all of the runoff from impervious surfaces using a combination of bioretention areas and mechanical treatment structures that have been sized per County C.3 guidelines. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to drainage patterns and runoff, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to drainage patterns and runoff. With regard to flooding, the GPA EIR states that the Planning Area is not located near a levy or a dam or in a 100-year flood hazard zone and therefore concludes the Amendment would have no impact related to the placement of people or structures in a flood hazard area, the exposure of people or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-37.) 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 43 Examination of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps shows that the Project site is in an area delineated as an “Area of Minimal Flood Hazard”, or Zone X. This zone is outside the 100-year flood hazard area. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to flooding compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to flooding. d. The GPA EIR states that an earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the San Francisco Bay, but that the Planning Area, with elevations ranging from 20 to 70 feet above msl would be too high for inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would be outside any potential tsunami hazard zone. Therefore, the GPA EIR concludes that the Amendment would result in less than significant impacts related to potential inundation by tsunami or seiche. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-37.) The Project is located within the Planning Area and thus at elevations too high for inundation by a 500-year tsunami and is outside any potential tsunami hazard zone. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to potential inundation by tsunami or seiche compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential inundation by tsunami or seiche. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 44 3.11 Land Use and Planning LAND USE AND PLANNING. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Physically divide an established community? ☐☐☐☒ b)Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for t he purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a.The GPA EIR states that the Amendment would promote mixed uses and heights and densities within South El Camino Real that are more compatible with North El Camino Real’s mixed-use residential/ commercial projects and office projects. As a result, the Amendment would create a unified corridor and a cohesive community. As such the GPA EIR concludes that the Amendment would have a less than significant impact related to established communities. (p. 3.8-7) The Project is a permitted use and is within the height and density permitted by the Amendment. See discussion below regarding consistency with the General Plan and Zoning. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to established communities compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to established communities. b.As discussed in the Project Description section of this ECA, the Amendment included General Plan amendments, Zoning Code amendments, and design guidelines applicable to properties located within the Planning Area. The GPA EIR states that this organized effort would ensure that planning and implementation remain consistent, and concludes that the Amendment would result in less than significant impacts related to consistency with land use plans, policies, or regulations. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.8-8 to 3.8-9.) The Project is located in the El Camino Real Mixed-Use (“ECRMX”) designation under the General Plan and the Zoning Code. The Project is consistent with the land use designation and policies of the General Plan and Zoning Code, as shown in the analysis of each development standard below, followed by Table A, General Plan and Zoning Code Development Standards - Consistency Analysis. As discussed in 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 45 Section 3.12 (Noise) of this ECA, clarifying amendments are proposed to three General Plan policies to ensure internal policy consistency. Use: The ECRMX General Plan and Zoning Code designation permits residential uses, in addition to a variety of commercial uses including retail, restaurants, and office uses. The Project provides 338 apartment homes and amenities (i.e, a fitness center, a yoga studio, club rooms, a business center and bike rooms), a 1,141 square-foot café, a community garden and private open space areas. The Project is not located on El Camino Real. Therefore, these uses are consistent with the designations under the General Plan and Zoning Code, and thus consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR. Height: The ECRMX General Plan and Zoning Code designation permits a base maximum height of 80 feet, and up to 120 feet with a Conditional Use Permit when certain incentives (e.g., a Transportation Demand Management Program, high-quality design standards, and green building methods) are provided, and requires a minimum height of 25 feet. The Project is five stories tall, approximately a maximum of 60 feet, and thus consistent with the designations under the General Plan and Zoning Code, and with the analysis in the GPA EIR. Intensity: The ECRMX General Plan designation sets a 2.5 floor area ratio (“FAR”) maximum (up to 3.5 FAR with a Conditional Use Permit when certain incentives (e.g., a Transportation Demand Management Program, high-quality design standards, and green building methods) are provided) and a 0.6 FAR minimum. The Project has an FAR of approximately 1.86 (approximately 383,733 square-foot project, excluding subterranean parking area, on a 206,474 square-foot lot), and thus is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code designations, and with the analysis in the GPA EIR. Density: The ECRMX General Plan and Zoning Code designation allows up to 60 dwelling unit per acre (“du/ac”) maximum base density, and up to 80 du/ac with a Conditional Use Permit when certain incentives (e.g., a TDM Program, high-quality design standards, and green building methods) are provided. The Project proposes 71 du/ac (338 units on 4.74 acres) with active ground floor uses, and will implement a TDM Program, high-quality design standards, and green building methods. As such, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code designations, and with the analysis in the GPA EIR. Active Use: The ECRMX Zoning Code designation requires a minimum FAR of 0.3 for “active uses” for projects on lots greater than 20,000 sf, and separately prohibits residential uses on the ground floor frontages along El Camino Real. These two Zoning Code requirements reflect policies described in the General Plan regarding active uses. Namely, frontages along El Camino Real are required to include active commercial uses and residential uses are not permitted on the ground floor24, while frontages on other Arterial/Collector streets are required to provide 0.3 FAR for a different kind of active uses that provide “visual interest and promote pedestrian comfort.”25 Specifically, the General Plan lists the following active uses as being appropriate for frontages along El Camino Real: retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, airline ticket agencies, child care services, libraries, museums and galleries. The General Plan distinguishes this level of activation 24 See General Plan Policy 3.4-I-17, which describes active uses on El Camino Real frontages compared to those on other Arterial/Collector streets and above the ground floor on El Camino Real. 25 See General Plan Policy 3.4-I-30, which describes the desired pedestrian perspective on El Camino Real compared to that on other Arterial/Collector streets. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 46 on El Camino Real from activation required on other Arterial/Collector streets, which are sufficiently activated with mixed-use buildings.26 The Project is located along Huntington Avenue, an Arterial/Collector street, and on a site larger than 20,000 square feet, thus is subject to the minimum active use FAR requirement, and permitted to include residential on the ground floor. The Project, on Huntington and Noor Avenues, will include approximately 77,000 square feet of open space, including publicly accessible plazas along Huntington Avenue that would provide a park- like setting. Of the open space, the cafe, amenity space, and publicly accessible plazas, totaling over 72,000 square feet qualify as activated uses (provide 0.35 floor area ratio on a 206,474 square-foot lot – which exceeds the 0.3 minimum requirement), and the residential stoops will further activate Huntington and Noor Avenues. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code’s active use requirement. Parking: The General Plan does not provide ratios for the provision of on-site parking. The Zoning Code general provisions on parking apply to projects in the ECRMX designation. The Zoning Code requires 687 parking spaces for the Project based on the unit mix provided and the size of the retail space. The Zoning Code 27 permits the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for reduced parking if it makes specific findings. The Project will comply with the Zoning Code parking regulations. The Project currently proposes 476 parking spaces, and therefore requires a reduction in parking requirements. See Table A below. With a Conditional Use Permit, the Project may achieve this level of reduction pursuant to the Other Parking Reduction mechanism, especially due to its close proximity to the San Bruno BART and Caltrain Stations, and its provision of a Transportation Demand Management Program. With approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the Project would be consistent with the Zoning Code requirements. Yards and Lot Size/Coverage: The Zoning Code provides for yard and lot size/coverage requirements. The Project will provide the required yards. See Table A below. Thus, the Project is consistent with the Zoning Code requirements. Open Space and Landscaping: The Zoning Code provides for open space and landscaping requirements. The Project will provide the required open space and landscaping. See Table A below. Thus, the Project is consistent with the Zoning Code requirements. 26 General Plan Policy 3.4-I-17. 27 Zoning Code § 20.330.006.D. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 47 Table A, General Plan and Zoning Code Development Standards - Consistency Analysis. Development Standard28 Project Details Consistent? Use: Multifamily residential units are permitted. Eating and drinking establishments and general retail uses are permitted.29 Mixed- use buildings are permitted. Mixed-use building including multifamily residential uses with a portion of frontage on Huntington Avenue retail (e.g., eating and drinking establishment, gallery, general retail). Yes. Minimum FAR: 0.6 FAR for all uses, exclusive of parking areas, and 0.3 FAR for active uses All: 1.86 FAR Active: 0.35 FAR Yes. Maximum FAR: 2.5 FAR for all uses, and 3.5 for all uses for projects that provide ECRMX incentives (described below) 1.86 FAR Yes. Density for Mixed-Use Buildings: 60 du/ac, and 80 du/ac for projects that provide ECRMU incentives (described below) 71 du/ac Yes. Minimum Height: 25 feet 3-5 stories; 38.5-60 feet Yes. Maximum Height30: 80 feet, and 120 for projects that provide ECRMX incentives (described below) 3-5 stories; 38.5-60 feet Yes. Yards: •Minimum Front: 12 feet •Average Front: 16 feet •Minimum Interior Side: 0 feet •Minimum Street Side: 10 feet •Minimum Rear: 15 feet Front: •Parcel 1: ~20 feet •Parcel 2: ~18 feet Interior: ~61 feet Rear: •Parcel 1: ~30 feet •Parcel 2: ~15 feet Yes. Minimum Lot Size: 20,000 sf 206,474 sf Yes. Maximum Lot Coverage: 90% of lot 39.2% Yes. Minimum Usable Open Space: 150 sf per 77,373 sf Yes. 28 Development Standards contained in Zoning Code § 20.090.004, except parking contained in Zoning Code Chapter 20.330. The General Plan contains use, intensity, density, and height that are applicable to the Project, and are the same as those contained in the Zoning Code. 29 Bars/nightclubs/lounges are permitted with a conditional use permit. 30 The minimum ground floor height for residential uses may be 12 feet. However, the Zoning Code is ambiguous as to whether this limitation applies to only those buildings fronted on El Camino Real, or whether it applies to all buildings within the ECRMU district. The Zoning Code reads, “The minimum ground floor height for buildings along El Camino Real with nonresidential uses at the ground level is a minimum of 15 feet, measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of the property along El Camino Real to the finish floor elevation of the second floor, with a minimum 12 foot clearance from floor to ceiling. The minimum ground floor height shall be 12 feet for buildings containing ground floor residential uses.” (See Zoning Code § 20.090.004(B)(1).) 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 48 unit Minimum Landscaping: 10% of site 31.54% Yes. Required Parking for Residential Uses: •Studio (less than 500 sf): 1 space per unit •One-bedroom (500-800 sf): 1.5 spaces per unit •Two-bedroom (801-1,100 sf): 1.8 spaces per unit •Three-bedroom (>1,101 sf): 2 spaces per unit •Guests: 1 space per 4 units Required Parking for Potential Retail Uses: •Coffee Shops/Cafés: 1 space per 100 sf of customer seating area Residential Use: One-bedroom: 14931 Required parking: 223.5 Two -bedroom: 90 Required parking: 162 Three-bedroom: 103 Required parking: 206 Guest: 85.5 Total: 677 Potential Retail Uses: Café is 1,141 sf. Assuming 1,000 square- foot seating area, the retail component would require 10 spaces. Total: 10 Yes, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit for reduced parking. The Project is also consistent with Plan Bay Area, the region’s SCS/RTP under SB 743, which has been updated since the certification of the GPA EIR. The Project is located entirely within the City’s El Camino Real Priority Development Area (“PDA”) and a Transit Priority Area (“TPA”) under the Plan Bay Area, which is designated as Mixed-Use Corridor. The Mixed-Use Corridor permits mid and low-rise apartments and condos; townhomes; small lot single family adjacent to corridor; local retail in individual or mixed-use buildings. The Plan Bay Area forecasts that within this PDA population will increase by 10,355 by 2040 compared to 2010; and number of households will increase by 3,517. The Project proposes uses consistent with Plan Bay Area, and would add 338 new households with a relative increase in population, consistent with the forecasts of the Plan Bay Area for the City’s El Camino Real PDA. Further, the Project is consistent with Plan Bay Area’s goal to encourage mixed-use development in proximity to transit options. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to conflicts with land use plans and regulations compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Further the Project is consistent with the recently updated Plan Bay Area. As such, consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no significant environmental impacts related to conflicts with land us plans and regulations. 31 To be conservative this table includes the studio units proposed as part of the Project as one-bedroom units since they exceed the specifications for studios under the Zoning Code (i.e., greater than 500 sf). 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 49 3.12 Mineral Resources MINERAL RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? ☐☐☐☒ b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a, b. According to the GPA EIR, the Planning Area does not contain any mineral resources within its limits and has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site. As such, the GPA EIR concludes that Amendments would have no impact on any known mineral resources. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-38.) Because there are no mineral resources and no delineated mineral resource areas in the Planning Area, the Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State or in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Because the Project is within the Planning Area analyzed in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to mineral resources compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to scenic vistas. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 50 3.13 Noise NOISE. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIR a)Generation of a substantial 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? ☐☐☒☐ b)Generation of excessive ground- borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels? ☐☐☐☒ c)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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☐☐☒☐ Documentation: a, c The GPA EIR states that the Amendment could result in development of noise-sensitive receptors in close proximity to major sources of transportation noise, from El Camino Real and San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”). According to the GPA EIR, the Amendment includes land uses within the CNEL 65 dB or CNEL 70 dB contours of the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) that are mixed use and commercial. Mixed-use development may include residential uses, which are conditionally compatible in the CNEL 65 dB and incompatible in the CNEL 70 dB. In addition to noise from aircraft, several parcels that will be designated as El Camino Real Mixed Use under the Amendment may be subject to noise levels of CNEL 65 dB or greater from roadway noise due to El Camino Real. Uses such as residential and schools are conditionally compatible within the CNEL 65 dB to CNEL 70 dB range. The GPA EIR ultimately concludes that existing regulations and policies and Amendment policies, such as maintenance of interior noise levels at CNEL 45 dB or less and restriction of residential development in CNEL 70 dB+ areas, will sufficiently mitigate impacts resulting from placing sensitive receptors near major sources of transportation noise. (GPA EIR, p. 3.2-14.) 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 51 The Project is not located within the 2030 Projected Roadway Noise Contours for El Camino Real. (GPA EIR, Figure, 3.2-4.) The Project is not located in the vicinity of a private air strip, but is located within the SFO ALUCP Airport Influence Area (“AIA”) A and B. (ALUCP, Exhibits IV-1 and IV-3.) AIA A requires certain real estate disclosures and AIA B triggers a consistency determination from the ALUC. The Project will be submitted to the ALUC for a consistency determination. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676, a City may overrule a finding of inconsistency by the ALUC if it makes specific findings that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes of Section 21670 regarding the protection of public health, safety and welfare in areas surrounding airports. Related to noise, based on the February 2020 Environmental Noise Study prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. (“Salter Noise Study”), it is noted that the currently adopted Exhibit IV-6 of the ALUCP, adopted in 2012 based on 2011 data, shows the site largely in the 70+ dB CNEL and the currently adopted FAA Part 150 2019 Noise Exposure Map, published in 2015 based on 2014 data, shows a small portion of one building at the edge of the 70+ dB CNEL. However, recent years of SFO noise monitoring data, as confirmed by on site noise readings, indicates the Project site is located within the CNEL 65-70 dB Noise Contour. Therefore, in light of more recent data, clarifying General Plan text amendments are proposed to the following General Plan policies to expressly incorporate City Council discretion to approve appropriate projects based on contemporary technical studies and to add a reference to the Local Agency Override process for projects that is available under State law, to the extent such process is necessary, as follows (new text shown in underline): Land Use Policy 2-I-22: Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport, with the exception of projects deemed appropriate by the City Council, and to the extent necessary, approved through the Local Agency Override process, consistent with the Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq. Noise Policy 9-1-10: Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in the CNEL 70 dB+ areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria, with the exception of projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and approved through the Local Agency Override process, if necessary. Noise Policy 9-I-11: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA-accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO), or those projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and, to the extent necessary, approved through the Local Agency Override process, to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. As disclosed in the GPA EIR, airport operations and engine technology are constantly changing, and as a result the applicable Noise Contours are often revised and were anticipated to move away from the Project Site area over time. (GPA EIR 9-2) In addition, specific construction techniques are feasible to reduce interior noise to CNEL 45 dB or less. As shown within the 2012 ALUCP, this project is within the 70 db noise contour. However, with updated noise data that is attached in the site specific nose study prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates (see Exhibit H), 2019 noise data indicates that this site is currently within the 65-70 db contour, which the ALUCP identifies as conditionally compatible for residential development. The Salter Noise Study includes recommendations that would ensure indoor noise levels of CNEL 45 dB or less, consistent with the ALUCP Infill Criteria and consistent with the intent of General Plan Policy 9-I-11, as proposed to be amended, of ensuring the protection of public health, safety and welfare. (See 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 52 Attachment H, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. 2020 Environmental Noise Study – 410 Noor Residences) The PBA EIR also analyzes noise impacts related to airport land use compatibility. The PBA EIR acknowledges that Project development could potentially be located in close proximity to existing airports such that applicable exterior and interior noise thresholds would be exceeded, and found that a potentially significant impact could occur to projected development only. The PBA EIR ultimately concludes that to the extent that an individual project adopts and implements all feasible mitigation measures described in PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-6 (see below), the appropriate design and building construction would ensure interior noise levels of 45 dB CNEL and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. (PBA EIR, pp. 2.6-33 to 34.) The Project is consistent with the type of development analyzed in the PBA EIR. See the Land Use and Planning section of this ECA for an analysis of the Project’s consistency with Plan Bay Area. The Project has complied with PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-6 by preparing a project-specific noise study that includes recommendations to ensure indoor noise levels of CNEL 45 dB or less, and the project will be required to implement construction measures to reduce indoor noise levels to CNEL 45 dB or less. (See Exhibit H, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. 2020 Environmental Noise Study – 410 Noor Residences.) Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR and PBA EIR, and will be required to implement noise-reduction construction measures, it would not result in any new or more significant noise impacts that would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR and PBA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR and PBA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR and PBA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant noise impacts related to excessive noise levels with the implementation of PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-6. While the project is located within an airport land use plan area, implementation of the requirements of the site-specific noise study will ensure that people residing or working in the project area will note be exposed to excessive noise levels. PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-6: Local lead agencies for all new development proposed to be located within an existing airport influence zone, as defined by the locally adopted airport land use compatibility plan or local general plan, shall require a site-specific noise compatibility study. The study shall consider and evaluate existing aircraft noise, based on specific aircraft activity data for the airport in question, and shall include recommendations for site design and building construction to ensure compliance with interior noise levels of 45 dB CNEL, such that the potential for sleep disturbance is minimized. With regard to construction, the GPA EIR states that ambient noise levels near areas of new development may temporarily increase due to construction activities. However, the new development would be required to comply with the limitations on construction activity and associated noise standards included in Title 8 of the City’s Municipal Code. Compliance with these provisions is mandatory and will ensure that construction noise impacts, while potentially a temporary nuisance, are less than significant. (GPA EIR, p. 3.2-14.) Further, the GPA EIR states that noise generated from the Project is expected to be primarily due to noise from traffic along El Camino Real, which is expected to increase 1.2 dB north of Westborough and 1.4 to 1.9 dB south of Westborough. Because this increase is less than 3.0 dB, it is not expected to be noticeable (outside of a laboratory, a change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response is expected), making noise impacts related to increased traffic less than significant. (GPA EIR, p. 3.2-14.) 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 53 The Project is required to and would comply with the acoustical requirements of the General Plan and Municipal Code. (See Exhibit H, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. 2020 Environmental Noise Study – 410 Noor Residences; see also above discussion regarding impacts related to the ALUCP, including General Plan policies that involve compliance with the ALUCP.) Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to increase in temporary or permanent ambient noise levels compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to increase in temporary or permanent ambient noise levels. b.The GPA EIR concludes that given the limited potential for and temporary nature of ground-borne vibration in the Planning Area, the Amendment’s impacts related to ground-borne vibration would be less than significant. (GPA EIR, p. 3.2-15.) The Project would consist of apartments, above ground-level retail and underground parking. None of these uses will generate ground-borne vibrations and ground-borne noise. During construction, the Project will generate ground-borne vibrations and noise, but the vibrations will be temporary and exempted by the City’s Municipal Code as disclosed in the GPA EIR. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in t he GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to ground-borne vibration compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to ground-borne vibration. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 54 3.14 Population and Housing POPULATION AND HOUSING. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ☐☐☐☒ b)Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a.As noted in the GPA EIR, the Amendment allows for new residential and commercial development, which will result in an increase in population, housing, and jobs. (GPA EIR, p. 5-1) Under the Amendment, the population in South San Francisco is anticipated to grow from 65,020 in 2009 to 69,810 in 2020, at buildout. (GPA EIR, p. 5-1) This is a 7% increase in population, with an annual growth rate of 0.65%. (GPA EIR, p. 5-1) The population increase forecasted for the Amendment is within 1% of the population planned for by ABAG by 2020, of 69,200 people. Per the City’s General Plan Update Existing Conditions report, the 2017 population of the City was measured at 67,120.32 Because the Amendment would accommodate planned regional growth, the impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 5-2) The Project would construct 338 units of housing above ground-floor active uses and under-ground parking. This is consistent with the General Plan Amendment, and the City’s Municipal Code, which together control the population growth in the City through the regulations contained within them. Plan Bay Area 2040 forecasts that within the relevant PDA (see Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy, for further discussion), population will increase by 10,355 by 2040 as compared to 2010; and increase by 3,517 households. The Amendment permits the uses described in Plan Bay Area, and by 2020 will result in a population increase of 2,410, consistent with Plan Bay Area Forecasts. The Project represents a small portion of the growth that has been planned for and anticipated in regional and local planning documents, and is within the growth studied in the GPA EIR. Thus, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the GPA EIR and no mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related 32 . https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SSF_ECR_Ch1_Demographics_final.pdf 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 55 to unplanned population growth, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to unplanned population growth. b.As noted in the GPA EIR, the majority of the Planning Area is currently developed with one- to two-story commercial developments. (GPA EIR, p. 3.8-2) Of the 62.2 total acres in the Planning Area, 6.3 acres (10.1%) are residential. (GPA EIR, p. 3.8-2) The GPA EIR finds that removal of existing housing units is not anticipated, but it is possible for lower-density residential uses to convert to high density or mixed uses. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.8-6, 3.8-8) However, because of the overall increase in housing allowed, any displaced residents would be able to find replacement housing in the same area. (GPA EIR, p. 3.8-8) Therefore, the GPA EIR concludes that impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p.3.8-8) The Project site is currently occupied by a vacant theater and surface parking. There is no housing on the site. The Project is consistent with and would in fact have fewer impacts than identified for the Amendment in the GPA EIR analysis because there is no housing on-site, and there have been no changes in circumstances that would alter GPA EIR conclusions. Further, the Project provides housing in an area planned for such housing and located close to public transit, in furtherance of regional planning goals. The Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the GPA EIR and no mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to displacement of people or housing, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to displacement of people or housing. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 56 3.15 Public Services PUBLIC SERVICES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need f or new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ☐☐ ☐☒ Police protection? ☐☐ ☐☒ Schools? ☐☐ ☐☒ Parks? (Note: impacts related to parks are analyzed in the Recreation Section) ☐☐☐☒ Other public facilities? (Note: impacts to water supply, wastewater, and landfill capacity are analyzed in the Utilities and Service Systems Section) ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a.(Fire) The GPA EIR indicates that future development in the Planning Area will be adequately served by two, existing nearby fire stations: Station # 63 (immediately north of the Planning Area, would provide 4.99 minute response times or less) and Station # 61 (would also provide 4.99 minute response times or less, especially in the southern portion of the Planning Area), which are within 1.5 miles and 1 mile of the Planning Area, respectively. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-15) The GPA EIR concludes existing facilities will continue to meet the National Fire Protection Association standard of one firefighter per 1,000 at full Planning Area buildout, and that no new facilities or expanded facilities are anticipated to be required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5- 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 57 16) Further, the GPA EIR notes that future development will be required to adhere to applicable General Plan policies (8.4-G-1 through 8.4-G-3), the California Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the City’s Municipal Code, to ensure that impacts related to fire services and fire hazards would be less than significant. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.5-10, 3.5-16) The GPA EIR therefore concludes that impacts with regard to fire services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-16) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policy 8.4-G-1 through 8.4-G-3. See Exhibit C, for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the GPA EIR’s conclusion. Fire Station # 63 is approximately 1.5 miles from the Project site, and Fire Station # 61 is less than 1 mile from the Project site. Existing fire stations have adequate capacity to serve the Project and meet performance standards. Further, as noted in the GPA EIR, the Project must comply with applicable General Plan policies, the California Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the City’s Municipal Code, to ensure that impacts related to fire services and fire hazards would be less than significant. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and its construction will not result in additional residents or employees beyond what was analyzed in the GPA EIR. Therefore, the Project would have no new or more significant impact on fire protection, and no new mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to fire services and fire hazards, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to fire services and fire hazards. (Police) The GPA EIR indicates that future development in the Planning Area will be adequately served by the police station at 33 Arroyo Drive, which is immediately north of the Planning Area, with 5 minutes or less response times at the furthest point from the station. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-16) While the GPA EIR indicates that increased population from Planning Area buildout would increase demand resulting in the need for 4 additional officers to maintain a standard of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents, the additional officers would not require the construction of a new police station. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-16) The GPA EIR concludes that the continued implementation of applicable General Plan policies ensure that adequate police service would be provided as buildout occurs, there would be a less than significant impact with regard to police services, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-16) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policy 8.5-G-1, 8.5-G-2, 8.5-I-1, 8-5.I-2, and 8.5-I-5. See Exhibit C, for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the GPA EIR’s conclusion. The Project site is approximately 1.5 miles from the police station at 33 Arroyo Drive, and the Project site will be adequately served by this station. A new police station at 1 Chestnut Avenue is currently under construction, which will replace the police station at 33 Arroyo Drive when complete, and will also be less than 1.5 miles away from the project site. The Project is consistent with the development assumed for the Planning Area and studied in the GPA EIR, and will not result in additional residents or employees beyond what was analyzed in the GPA EIR. As noted in the GPA EIR, the continued implementation of applicable General Policies (see Exhibit C for analysis of Project consistency with these policies) would ensure that impacts are less than significant. Further, the Project will be required to pay applicable public safety impact fees for police 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 58 and fire facilities and services. Therefore, the Project would have no new or more significant impact on police services, and no mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to police service, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to police service. (Schools) Based on projected buildout in the Planning Area by the year 2022, the GPA EIR concludes that existing schools have sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected new 60 students (at an assumed rate of 7.5 students per 100 units), because total projected enrollment for the year 2017 was 9,393 students and 9,240 students for the year 2022, with existing capacity for 10,701. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.5-12, 3.5-15) Further, all new development with residential components would pay state-required school impact fees. Therefore, the GPA EIR concludes that impacts on school facilities will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-15) The Project’s proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and what was assumed for the Planning Area in the GPA EIR, and the Project would be required to pay the Schools Facilities Impact Fee. Therefore, the Project would have no new or more significant impact on school facilities than disclosed in the GPA EIR, and no new mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with that the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to school facilities, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to school facilities. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 59 3.16 Recreation RECREATION. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Result in an increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ☐☐☐☒ b)Include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a. The GPA EIR noted that the City has a parkland ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents and one-half acre per 1,000 employees. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-5) The proposed development in the Planning Area would result in a projected population increase of 2,410 residents and 700 new employees, which would require approximately 7.58 acres of new parkland, increasing the total amount of new parkland required to 45.9 total acres by buildout. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.4-5, 3.4-6) The GPA EIR notes that 16.4 acres had been developed since adoption of the 1999 General Plan, meaning that 29.5 further acres were needed by Planning Area buildout to meet the park standard. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-6) Because 33.5 acres of proposed parkland would be built by Planning Area buildout, the GPA EIR concludes that there would be adequate additional parkland to meet demand. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-6) The increase in parkland near the Planning Area will help accommodate the projected population and employee increase, and minimize physical deterioration of facilities. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-7) Further, applicable Amendment Policy 5.I-I-10 requires the exploration of methods to improve connectivity to open space and enhanced park and recreation opportunities along the South El Camino Real Corridor. (GPA EI R, p. 3.4-7) Potential methods to meet this requirement identified in the GPA EIR that are applicable to individual developers include continuing the payment of in-lieu fees to provide the ability to add to citywide parkland. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.4-7, 3.4-8) The GPA EIR concludes that because adequate parkland is planned to meet demand and with compliance with Amendment Policy 5.I-I-10, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-8) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policy 5.I-I-10. See Exhibit C for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with this policy. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 60 There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the conclusions in the GPA EIR. The Project would result in the construction of 338 dwelling units, consistent with development assumed and analyzed in the GPA EIR. The resulting increase in parkland demand is accounted for in the GPA EIR because the Project is consistent with development allowed by the General Plan and Zoning Code. Moreover, the Project includes recreational amenities for its residents, decreasing the need for residents to use parkland for recreational needs (impacts from the construction of these facilities is accounted for in other sections of this document). Specifically, the Project would include approximately 77,000 square feet of open space, including publicly accessible plazas along Huntington Avenue that would provide a park-like setting with open grass space and community garden, and a private courtyard with lush landscaping and seating areas. In addition, consistent with the GPA EIR’s analysis, the Project would be subject to the requirement to pay park acquisition and construction impact fees. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to parkland and recreation demand, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to parkland and recreation demand. b. The GPA EIR notes that the 1997 Park, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan provides a framework to guide park system and recreation facility improvements over a 15-year horizon. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-3) It addresses the preservation of existing parks and school sites for public use, improvement of the existing facilities, and strategic acquisition and expansion of facilities. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-3) It also provides a description of changed conditions, updates the facilities inventory, and discusses new opportunities for park and recreation facilities. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-3) The GPA EIR concludes that while the Amendment would result in increased use of existing facilities and increase the demand for facilities, it would also be required to pay park impact fees as discussed above under threshold a), and appropriate implementation of the PROS Master Plan would ensure that impacts with regard to the expansion and increased use of recreation and public facilities are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.4-8) There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the conclusion in the GPA EIR. The Project is approximately 1 mile from Orange Memorial Park, one of the oldest and largest parks in South San Francisco, and 1.25 miles from the smaller Avalon Park, and Southwood Playground. It is also 1.1 miles from Commodore Park and approximately 1 mile from Forest Lane Park, both in neighboring San Bruno. An updated PROS Master Plan was adopted on July 22, 2015.33 As noted in the GPA EIR, this master plan addresses the preservation of existing parks and school sites for public use, improvement of the existing facilities, and strategic acquisition and expansion of facilities, and the City will continue to take action to implement the PROS Master Plan to ensure parks and recreation facilities are properly maintained, improved upon, and expanded in response to anticipated development. Further, while the Project would result in the development of 338 additional residential units, this development is consistent with what was assumed and analyzed in the GPA EIR, the Project provides on-site amenity and private open spaces for residents that would reduce demand, and the Project will be required to pay park impact fees, as discussed above under threshold a). Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to the expansion and increased use of recreation and public facilities, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new 33 Available at http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=498. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 61 information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to the expansion and increased use of recreation and public facilities. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 62 3.17 Transportation TRANSPORTATION. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? ☐☐☐☒ b)Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 51064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐☐☐☒ c)Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? ☐☐☐☒ d)Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: a, b. Regional access to the Planning Area is provided by I-280, I-380, and US 101, and local access is via El Camino Real and small collector and local streets that connect the Planning Area to regional access points. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-1) The GPA EIR uses Level of Service (“LOS”) to study the degree of congestion and effectiveness for performance of the vehicular transportation system with Planning Area development. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-1) To analyze impacts, the GPA EIR analyzes LOS performance at ten intersections and nine roadway and highway segments in and around the Planning Area, under Existing Conditions, 2030 Cumulative No Project, 2030 Cumulative with Amendment, and 2030 Cumulative with Amendment and 15% TDM Reduction scenarios. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-17) Under Existing Conditions, all 10 study intersections operate at LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-22) Prior to a TDM reduction, Planning Area buildout would result in 8,014 trips generated daily, while this number would be reduced to 6,812 with the implementation of TDM programming consistent with General Plan and Amendment policies. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-18) The GPA EIR concludes that in 2030, LOS would be unacceptable (E or F) at the following intersections, even with implementation of TDM programming providing 15% reductions: •Westborough Blvd/El Camino Real during both AM and PM peak hours; •W Orange Ave/El Camino Real during both AM and PM peak hours; •Ponderosa Rd/El Camino Real during both AM and PM peak hours; 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 63 •Country Club Drive/El Camino Real during AM peak hours; •S Spruce Ave/El Camino Real during both AM and PM peak hours; •Sneath Ln/El Camino Real during PM peak hours •1-380 WB/El Camino Real during PM peak hours. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.1-23 through 3.1-25) The GPA EIR concludes that above-listed study intersections that would operate at LOS E or F under Planning Area buildout conditions without TDM implementation would continue to do so even with a 15% TDM reduction, indicating that the TDM program alone is not enough to mitigate the significant impacts. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-25) Further, while applicable General Plan (2-G-7 and 2-G-8, 2-I-4, 4.2-G-5 and 4.2-G- 6, 4.2-G-8 through 4.2-G-10, 4.3-G-1 through 4.3-G-4, 4.3-I-1 through 4.3-I-4, 4.3-I-8, and 4.3-I-10) and Amendment policies (3.4-I-17), and the incorporation of mixed-use development, would reduce impacts of individual development projects, the GPA EIR concludes that overall Planning Area impacts would remain cumulatively significant and unavoidable because the necessary improvements that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level (widening all approaches and adding additional receiving lanes) would counteract the goals of the Amendment to improve conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, and would be economically and technologically infeasible. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.1-26, 3.1-27) Similarly, with regard to highway segments, the GPA EIR concludes that impacts would be significant for the I-280 freeway segment between Westborough Boulevard and Hickey Boulevard, because Planning Area buildout (even with TDM incorporated) would cause the freeway segment volume-to-capacity ratio to increase by 1%. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.1-27 to 3.1-30) Mitigation would require adding capacity to the roadway system, which the GPA EIR concludes is infeasible. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-30) Consequently, the GPA EIR concludes that congestion impacts for the roadway and freeway segments identified above are significant and unavoidable, and there is no feasible mitigation to lessen impacts. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-27) The City thereafter adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the GPA EIR that determined that benefits of buildout under the Amendment outweighed the traffic impacts. The GPA EIR does note that applicable General Plan policies 4.2-G-9 and 4.2-G-10 specify that for individual development projects, lower LOS of E or F may be an acceptable threshold, and that transit-oriented projects are to be exempted from LOS standards: 4.2-G-9: Accept LOS E or F after finding that: •There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and •The uses resulting in the lower level or service are of clear, overall public benefit 4.2-G-10: Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City- designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-10) The Project is consistent with the development contemplated and analyzed in the GPA EIR. The Project also includes preparation and implementation of a TDM Plan, as described above. To ensure that the Project would not create new or more substantial impacts than disclosed in the Program GPA EIR, a traffic consultant prepared a transportation impact analysis (“Project TIA”) (Exhibit I, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Traffic Impact Analysis – 410 Noor Avenue) for the Project. The Project TIA estimates that with a 15% reduction for implementation of the TDM Plan, the Project, with up to 338 residential units, would add a net total of 152 AM peak hour trips and 184 PM peak hour trips on a 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 64 regular weekday. (Project TIA, p. i) The Project TIA analyzes impacts at intersections under the following conditions: Existing, Existing Plus Project, Background, Background With Project, and Cumulative. (Project TIA, p. i) With regard to Project impacts on analyzed intersections, under Existing Conditions, the intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue operates at LOS E during PM peak hour, and under the Existing Plus Project and Background Plus Project Conditions, the Project would add traffic to this intersection. (Project TIA, pp. i, 20, 27, 35) While the Project TIA concludes that this additional traffic would only increase the average delay by 1 second in the Existing Plus Project condition and 1.8 seconds in the Background Plus Project condition, which may not be noticeable, it identifies that this additional traffic would typically be a potentially significant impact, per City standards. (Project TIA, pp. i, 27, 35) Improvements that would be necessary to reduce this impact are an additional through lane on northbound El Camino Real, two additional through lanes on southbound El Camino Real, an additional left-turn lane, an additional through lane and an additional right-turn lane on westbound Spruce Avenue and an exclusive left-turn lane on eastbound Hazelwood Drive. (Project TIA, p. 27, 35) The TIA notes that these improvements may not be feasible, which as noted above, is confirmed in the GPA EIR and its TIA. (Project TIA, pp. 27, 35; GPA EIR, p. 3.1-30) The GPA EIR further notes that the improvements would be contrary to the valuable goals of the Amendment and General Plan. Rather than advocate for the implementation of improvements that undermine the General Plan, the GPA EIR and the Project TIA note that General Plan policies 4.2-G-9 and 4.2-G-10 apply. Under applicable Policy 4.2-G-9, LOS E or F would be considered an acceptable standard for Project traffic, given that there is no practical and feasible method to mitigate the added traffic; and provided the Project results in clear, overall public benefits. (TIA, p. 27; GPA EIR, p. 3.1-10) The Project meets these requirements. As noted above, the GPA EIR concludes that mitigation is infeasible, and the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that benefits of buildout under the Amendment outweighed the traffic impacts. The Project specifically provides a clear overall public benefit in that it helps to meet the critical need for housing to serve anticipated regional and local growth, would provide high-quality design, redevelop a currently underutilized area, and place high-quality housing near multiple transit options, with a TDM Plan and green building measures. Therefore, the Project meets the standard expressed under Policy 4.2-G-9, and LOS E is an acceptable level of service at the intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue – resulting in a less than significant impact finding. With regard to construction traffic, the Project will be required to and shall comply with all applicable regulations and standard conditions to ensure less than significant impacts from hauling and other vehicle traffic. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, nor would it conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures. Project-specific impacts are therefore less than significant with regard to traffic congestion and level of service, and the Project has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the GPA EIR and no new mitigation is required. Similarly, the Project is within the scope of development analyzed in the GPA EIR and remains consistent with the CMP and therefore would not create new or more significant impacts to freeway segments than discussed in the GPA EIR and no new mitigation is required. With regard to cumulative impacts, under both Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With Project conditions, four intersections would operate at LOS E or F: •El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue (LOS E in AM; LOS F in PM); •El Camino Real and Sneath Lane (LOS F in PM); 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 65 •El Camino Real and I-380 Westbound Ramps (LOS F in PM); and •El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue (LOS F in PM) (Project TIA, p. 39) Based on the significance criteria established by the City of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno, this impact would be considered potentially significant if the Project caused an average increased delay of more than 4 seconds. (Project TIA, p. 39) Because the Project does not exceed this threshold, impacts are less than significant with regard to these intersections. (Project TIA, p. 39) With regard to the intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue, the Project TIA concludes that this unsignalized intersection will continue to operate with overall acceptable levels of service using typical level of service analysis, based on the average delay during both AM and PM peak hours. (Project TIA, pp. 30, 38, 40) However, under cumulative conditions the left-turn movement from southbound El Camino Real onto eastbound Noor Avenue would experience long delays that would result in an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak for this movement; it would also add 11 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 45 vehicles during the PM peak hour to the northbound right-turn movement, thus increasing the delay for the southbound left-turn movements. (Project TIA, p. 40) The intersection was evaluated for the CA MUTD peak-hour Warrant 3, with the southbound left-turn as the minor street approach and northbound El Camino Real as the major street; the analysis showed that the intersection meets the warrant during AM and PM peak hours under cumulative conditions. (Project TIA, p. 40). However, the he cumulative traffic volumes are speculative and based on aggressive annual growth factors, resulting in a traffic increase of more than 35% over a 13-year time period. A comparison of 2008 traffic counts to 2017 traffic counts at the intersection of El Camino Real/Sneath Lane intersection show an increase of only 2.5% during the AM peak hour and a decrease of 8% during the PM peak hour over a 9-year time period. (Project TIA, page 42). While the TIA recommends that the City continue to monitor intersection and evaluate whether future projects will require a traffic signal, this is not considered a significant impact. (Id.) Therefore, with regard to cumulative conditions, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, nor would it conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures. Cumulative impacts are therefore less than significant with regard to traffic congestion and level of service, and the Project has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the GPA EIR and no new mitigation is required. The current state law requires a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis to measure project impacts, and provides streamlined review of land use and transportation projects that would reduce VMT growth. The new state law presumes that land use projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor, such as the 410 Noor residential project, would have a less than significant transportation impact. With regard to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, the GPA EIR found that buildout of the Planning Area would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Rather, Planning Area buildout would further such policies because development would be required to comply with General Plan and Amendment policies that would further such goals, including to reduce vehicle miles traveled, develop comprehensive and integrated pedestrian and bicycle systems, improve access to and use of the public transportation, increase the use of shuttle operations and other employer based incentives, and implement transportation demand programs. The General Plan as amended also permits residential uses near existing transit and retail services to encourage use of alternative transportation methods. Therefore, the GPA EIR 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 66 concludes that there would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.1-22) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policies 4.2-G- 5, 4.2-G-6, 4.2-G-10, 4.3-G-1 through 4.3-G-4, 4.3-I-1 through 4.3-I-4, 4.3-I-8, 4.3-I-10, 2-G-7, 2-G-8, and 2- I-4. See Exhibit C, Summary of Impacts and Policies That Reduce Impacts for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the GPA EIR’s conclusion. The Project is well situated to take advantage of the existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit services in the immediate vicinity that would allow project residents and employees to travel to various destinations without a car. (See Project TIA, p. 51) While the Project would increase use of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, the Project is consistent with the development anticipated by the General Plan and Amendment, and the Project TIA found that existing transit options can handle Project demand. (Project TIA, p. 51) In addition, the Project would pay the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact fee to offset any potential impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, will implement a TDM plan as discussed above, and will improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the immediate project vicinity. The Project TIA confirms that the Project would not have any adverse effect on existing transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities in the Project area, and that expansion would not be necessary. (Project TIA, pp. iv, 52) Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impact related to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. c, d. The GPA EIR concludes that development of the Planning Area would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses and instead would increase the design quality of the Planning Area through adherence to General Plan and Amendment policies. The GPA EIR also found that development of the Planning Area would not change emergency vehicle access routes, which would remain adequate to serve the Plan Area; there would be no impact with regard to design features or incompatible uses, and with regard to emergency access. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.1-21, 3.1-22) There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter the GPA EIR’s impact conclusion. The Project would conform to all engineering and fire safety standards related to transportation design features of the site, including the design of the driveways and on-site circulation, and would comply with recommendations for on-site circulation contained in the Project TIA. Access to the Project site would be provided via driveways on Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue. The Project does not propose incompatible uses or offsite roadway alterations or alterations that would impede the existing, adequate emergency access. Additionally, the Project would pay the City’s Public Safety Impact Fee that funds improvements to infrastructure or public services necessitated by new development to ensure adequate emergency access. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or use with incompatible vehicles and would not result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. Thus, the Project would not result in any new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the GPA EIR and no mitigation is required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to design hazards and emergency access, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 67 GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impact with regard to design hazards and emergency access. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 68 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i)Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? ☐☐☐☒ ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 69 a(i-ii) The GPA EIR does not separately evaluate tribal cultural resources under AB 52 requirements, because AB 52 only applies to those projects for which a lead agency had issued an NOP of an EIR or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015. Therefore, the GPA EIR does not separately analyze whether it would adversely affect defined Tribal Cultural Resources. However, it does analyze potential impacts to all historic and archaeological resources including tribal cultural resources, and to human remains including tribal remains, as discussed above in the Cultural Resources section. As discussed above, the GPA EIR concludes that there would be no impacts because of the anticipated lack of resources, and due to required compliance with State law and applicable General Plan policies. Circumstances with regard to tribal resources have not changed since the publication of the GPA EIR. As such, the Project would not have a new or more significant impact on listed or eligible Tribal Cultural Resources than disclosed in the GPA EIR and no new mitigation measures are required. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to tribal cultural resources. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 70 3.19 Utilities and Services Systems UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, would the Project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, , the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ☐☐☐☒ b)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? ☐☐☐☒ c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves the project area that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project area’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ☐☐☐☒ d)Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ☐☐☐☒ e Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐☐☐☒ 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 71 Documentation: a, c. As described in the GPA EIR, all wastewater produced in South San Francisco is treated at the City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which also treats water from San Bruno. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-4, 3.5-5) As further described in the GPA EIR, the plant is permitted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and, has an average dry weather flow design capacity of 13 mgd and average wet weather flow capacity of 60 MGD. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-4) The GPA EIR notes that the City of South San Francisco has an allocation of 8.74 MGD of treatment capacity, and is generating 5.6 MGD, leaving excess capacity. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-5) Further, the City’s storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB, and the City regulates sewage disposal and stormwater management in Title 14. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-9) The GPA EIR indicates that Planning Area buildout would result in approximately 250,000 gallons per day of wastewater, and that commercial flow rates could potentially increase by approximately 550,000 gallons per day. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-18) The GPA EIR concludes that the anticipated increase with Planning Area buildout would fit within the City’s allocation capacity and would continue to comply with RWQCB requirements, and the impact with regard to wastewater capacity would therefore be less than significant with no mitigation required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-19) Further, with the City’s planned upgrades to handle increased flows from development, and implementation of flat rate sewer connection fees and impact fees, the costs and impacts of sewer system upgrades would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-19) There is sufficient permitted influent capacity at the WQCP to treat effluent from Project development. The Project will also be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements and City regulations with regard to sewage disposal and stormwater management. The WQCP complies with the requirements of the RWQCB and because the Project’s wastes would be treated at that facility, its wastes would be treated in compliance with RWQCB requirements. Further, the Project would pay the City’s sewer connection fee and development impact fee, which helps to offset impacts on sewer capacity from new development projects. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to wastewater, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to wastewater. b. The GPA EIR states that the population growth associated with the Planning Area (a combination of residential and nonresidential) uses would increase the demand for water in the Planning Area, but such growth is consistent with the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projections. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-16) The GPA EIR concludes that the development contemplated by the General Plan would not require additional water supply or facilities in excess of that contemplated by the UWMP. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-17) The GPA EIR concludes that population projections for Planning Area buildout would be consistent with the 2006 UWMP, and had been accounted for in the UWMP. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-18) Because the 2006 UWMP accounts for Planning Area buildout and because development in the Planning Area would have to comply with General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (GPA EIR, p.3.5-18) The GPA EIR identifies the following General Plan and Amendment policies that would reduce this impact: Policies 5.3-G-1 through 5.3-G-1, and 5.3-I-1 through 5.3-I-3. See Exhibit C for a discussion of the Project’s compliance with these policies. Cal Water’s South San Francisco District (the City’s water supplier) adopted a new UWMP in 2016. The 2016 UWMP concluded that the South San Francisco District has sufficient water supply during years under 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 72 normal conditions, but during one-year or multiyear droughts, shortfalls of up to 20 percent or more are projected. Under such conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In recent drought years, customers were asked to reduce their demand by 8 percent as specified by the State Water Resources Control Board. The South San Francisco District exceeded this amount (20 percent reduction based on June 2015 to March 2016 totals). Cal Water is also working toward increasing the water supply portfolio for the South San Francisco District (Cal Water 2016). With continued implementation of the UWMP policies, including as necessary, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the City’s water supplier will have sufficient water supply to serve the Project and buildout of the District service area. Further, the Project will continue to comply with applicable General Plan policies (see Exhibit C). Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to water supply, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to water supply including with regard to the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years d, e. The GPA EIR notes that solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and processed at the South San Francisco Scavenger Company’s materials recovery facility and transfer station, where materials that cannot be recycled or composted are separated and transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-5) In 2001, the landfill operator obtained a permit to increase its permitted disposal acreage from 173 to 191 acres, and to change its closure date from 2018 to 2023. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-5) The GPA EIR also discloses that South San Francisco had reduced its waste stream in the previous decade, and in 2006 the City’s diversion rate was 50%, meeting the 50% State requirement for waste diversion. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-5) Per the GPA EIR, buildout of the Planning Area would result in an additional 18,725 pounds (9.4 tons) of landfilled solid waste per day, totaling 271 tons per day in the City, with continued waste diversion percentage of 50%. (GPA EIR, pp. 3.5-19, 3.5-20) The GPA EIR concludes that because the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate Planning Area buildout, and because implementation of General Plan policies 8.3-G-1 and 8.3-I-1 would be required, impacts would be less than significant. (GPA EIR, p. 3.5-20) The Project is consistent with development assumed for the Planning Area and analyzed in the GPA EIR, and there remains adequate capacity at Ox Mountain to accommodate solid waste from the Project. It is also noted that solid waste requiring landfill disposal would be reduced as compared to when the GPA EIR was certified, because the continued implementation of the City’s recycling programs and state mandates for increased diversion and enactment of legislation requiring additional increases in diversion (e.g., AB 341 and AB1826) have diverted larger amounts of waste from landfills. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR and would comply with all applicable regulatory and standard conditions and requirements to reduce waste and ensure appropriate capacity, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to landfill capacity or consistency with solid waste regulations, compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to landfill capacity and solid waste regulations. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 73 3.20 Wildfire WILDFIRE. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐☐☐☒ b)Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ☐☐☐☒ c)Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ☐☐☐☒ d)Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Documentation: a-d. The GPA EIR states that there is no wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the Planning Area, which is not within a fire hazard management unit. The GPA EIR therefore concludes that the Amendment would result in no impact. (GPA EIR, p. 3.9-29.) The Project site is located within the Planning Area and thus is not within a fire hazard management unit. It is in an urban area, and not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 74 hazard severity zones. Instead, the Project site is an urban infill site not adjacent to wildlands. Because the Project is consistent with the analysis in the GPA EIR, it would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to wildfire hazards compared to those analyzed in the GPA EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no changes have occurred and no new information has been made available since certification of the GPA EIR that would change its conclusions, therefore no further review is necessary. Consistent with the GPA EIR, the Project would result in no impacts related to wildfire hazards. 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 75 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Compared to the assumptions, analysis and conclusions presented in the certified EIRs: Significant and Unavoidable Impact, new or substantially more severe than in the EIRs Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs a)Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the num ber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ☐☐☐☒ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ☐☐☐☒ c)Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐☐☐☒ Documentation: 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 76 a.Based on the preceding discussion and the GPA EIR, it has been determined that the Project is consistent with the analysis of the GPA EIR and would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b.According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The GPA EIR concludes that the significant impacts identified in the GPA EIR and discussed throughout this ECA, with regard to transportation, GHG emissions, and air quality are cumulatively significant, while all others are not cumulatively significant. (GPA EIR, p. 5-4) Specifically with regard to Public Services and Utilities, the GPA EIR forecasted that population and employment growth would result in increased pressure on fire and police services, with water supply resources, but impacts would not be cumulatively significant. (GPA EIR, p. 5-4) With regard to energy, cumulative growth may have impacts to gas and electricity infrastructure, potentially requiring the installation, relocation, or realignment of facilities, but this impact is not considered significant. (GPA EIR, p. 5-4) The potential cumulative impacts of the Project have been considered for each environmental topic evaluated above. Given the relatively short-term (24-30 month) nature of the Project’s construction schedule, and the fact that it would serve an existing community within an urbanized area consistent with the adopted General Plan, the Project will not have any cumulatively considerable impacts that are different or more significant than those as disclosed in the GPA EIR. c.The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as analyzed in the GPA EIR. List of Supporting Exhibits Exhibit B – Summary of Mitigation, General Plan Policies, and Standard Condition Requirements Exhibit C- Consistency with Impact Reducing Policies Exhibit D- CEQA Appendix N Infill Checklist Exhibit E- Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist Exhibit F - Evaluation of Existing Trees – 410 Noor Ave, Michael L. Bench Exhibit G - Phase I, Environmental Site Assessment Executive Summary - 410 Noor Avenue, Fugro Exhibit H - 2020 Environmental Noise Study – 410 Noor Residences, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. Exhibit I - Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) – 410 Noor Avenue, Hexagon Transportation Consultants 410 Noor Environmental Consistency Analysis May, 2020 Page 77 4.0 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) As discussed above, the Environmental Checklist confirms that 1) the Project does not exceed the environmental impacts analyzed in the GPA EIR, GP EIR and PBA EIR, 2) that no new impacts have been identified, and 3) no new mitigation measures are required. As detailed in the analysis presented above, the Project would not result in greater impacts than were identified for these program EIRs. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. On the basis of this initial evaluation and Consistency Checklist: ☐I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☒I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed and addressed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) its effects are less than or equal to the effects disclosed in the earlier EIR(s) or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, nothing further is required. May 12, 2020 Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner Date 3518206.1 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit BSummary of Mitigation, General Plan Policy, and Standard Condition Requirements Page 1 Summary of Mitigation, General Plan Policy, and Standard Condition Requirements 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Project South San Francisco, CA Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied AESTHETICS a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? General Plan Policy 3.4-G-5, Policy 3.4-I-22, Policy 3.4-I-23, and Policy 3.4-I-26 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? General Plan Policy 3.4-G-5, Policy 3.4-I-22, Policy 3.4-I-23, and Policy 3.4-I-26 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project, in a non- urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? General Plan Policy 3.4-G-5, Policy 3.4-I-22, Policy 3.4-I-23, and Policy 3.4-I-26 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Compliance with standard City requirements No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 410 Noor CEQA Resolution Exhibit B 2 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES a)Would the Project Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b)Would the Project Conflict with existing zoning for agricultura l use, or a Williamson Act contract? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c)Would the Project Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs d)Would the Project Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs e)Would the Project Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 3 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied to non- agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? AIR QUALITY a) Would the Project Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? General Plan Policy 7.3-I-3 Standard Condition of Approval to comply with BAAQMD BMPs and regulations No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? General Plan Policy 7.3-I-3 Standard Condition of Approval to comply with BAAQMD BMPs and regulations No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs d) Would the Project Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 4 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Would the Project Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs d) Would the Project Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Standard condition requiring that if Project vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with generally applicable regulations in the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting birds from construction disturbances. No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 5 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied e) Would the Project Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs f) Would the Project Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservat ion Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource Standard condition to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires if any unknown remains are uncovered, that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coro ner No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 6 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 ENERGY a) Would the Project Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Compliance with standard City requirements, including Climate Action Plan measures, and State regulations No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Compliance with standard City requirements, including Climate Action Plan measures, and State regulations No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the Project Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? Compliance with California Building Codes requirements, San Francisco Municipal Code requirements for the construction of safe buildings and preliminary soils reports No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 7 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Compliance with California Building Codes requirements, South San Francisco Municipal Code requirements for the construction of safe buildings and preliminary soils reports No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Compliance with California Building Codes requirements and South San Francisco Municipal Code requirements for the construction of safe buildings and preliminary soils reports, geotechnical report and grading plans; review and approval by the City Engineer for grading permit and Lot Merger application No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs iv) Landslides? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Comply with California Building Code, prepare a geotechnical report and a grading plan with its application for a grading permit, and undergo review and approval by the City Engineer for its grading permit and Lot Merger application. No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Comply with California Building Code, prepare a geotechnical report and a grading plan with its application for a grading permit, and undergo review and approval by the City Engineer for its grading permit and Lot Merger application. No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 8 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied d) Would the Project Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Comply with California Building Code, prepare a geotechnical report and a grading plan with its application for a grading permit, and undergo review and approval by the City Engineer for its grading permit and Lot Merger application. No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs e) Would the Project Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs f) Would the Project Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Standard City condition requiring that in the event any unanticipated paleontological resources are encountered during individual project development, the developer would be prohibited from damag ing or removing the resource per Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, with penalties contained in California Penal Code Section 622.5 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY a) Would the Project Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? General Plan Policy 3.4-G-5, 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.4- I-19, 3.4-I-20, 3.4-I-23, and 3.4-I-26 Consistency with Plan Bay Area and both mandatory and nonbinding measures of the City’s Climate Action Plan Transportation Demand Management Program Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs 9 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied b) Would the Project Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Plan Bay Area Mitigation Measure 2.5-3 Consistency with Plan Bay Area and both mandatory and nonbinding measures of the City’s Climate Action Plan Significant and Unavoidable Impact, consistent with the EIRs HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the Project Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 10 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied d) Would the Project Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Standard City conditions and regulatory requirements with regard to subsurface contamination and groundwater No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs e) For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Submit to the Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency determination South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (Section 20.300.010) contains performance standards to ensure that all development protects the community from nuisances, hazards and objectionable conditions, including those which could be aircraft hazards, including light, glare, air contaminants, or electromagnetic interference No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs f) Would the Project Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Comply with any applicable City regulations and generally applicable conditions of approval related to emergency access No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs g) Would the Project Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 11 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the Project Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface of ground water quality? Requirements applicable to construction activities on one acre or more that are contained in the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (“General Construction Permit”), including the requirement to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”), which must contain Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) that will control degradation of surface waters by preventing soil erosion or the discharge of pollutants from the construction area, post -construction controls, and non-stormwater management measures No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that 12 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including with all Construction General Permit Requirements including the implementation of a SWPPP No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including with all Construction General Permit Requirements including the implementation of a SWPPP No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including with all Construction General Permit Requirements including the implementation of a SWPPP No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs (iv) Would the Project Impede or redirect flood flows? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs d) Would the Project In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs e) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Requirements applicable to construction activities on one acre or more that are contained in the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (“General Construction Permit”), including No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 13 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied the requirement to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”), which must contain Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) that will control degradation of surface waters by preventing soil erosion or the discharge of pollutants from the construction area, post -construction controls, and non-stormwater management measures LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the Project Physically divide an established community? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 14 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied NOISE a) Would the Project cause Generation of a substantial 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? PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-6 Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan requirements, including with regard to the ALUCP Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project cause Generation of excessive ground- borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? PBA EIR Mitigation Measure 2.6-6 Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan requirements, including with regard to the ALUCP Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures, consistent with the EIRs POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the Project Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 15 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Would the Project Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the Project Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? General Plan Policy 8.4-G-1 through 8.4-G-3 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 16 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied Police protection? General Plan Policy 8.5-G-1, 8.5-G-2, 8.5-I-1, 8-5.I- 2, and 8.5-I-5 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs Schools? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs Parks? (Note: impacts related to parks are analyzed in the Recreation Section) General Plan Policy 5.I-I-10 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs Other public facilities? (Note: impacts to water supply, wastewater, and landfill capacity are analyzed in the Utilities and Service Systems Section) None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs RECREATION a) Would the Project Result in an increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? General Plan Policy 5.I-I-10 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 17 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied have an adverse physical effect on the environment? TRANSPORTATION a) Would the Project Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Transportation Demand Management Program General Plan Policy 2-G-7 and 2-G-8, 2-I-4, 4.2-G-5 and 4.2-G-6, 4.2-G-8 through 4.2-G-10, 4.3-G-1 through 4.3-G-4, 4.3-I-1 through 4.3-I-4, 4.3-I-8, and 4.3-I-10 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Wo uld the Project Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 51064.3, subdivision (b)? Transportation Demand Management Program General Plan Policy 2-G-7 and 2-G-8, 2-I-4, 4.2-G-5 and 4.2-G-6, 4.2-G-8 through 4.2-G-10, 4.3-G-1 through 4.3-G-4, 4.3-I-1 through 4.3-I-4, 4.3-I-8, and 4.3-I-10 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? Recommendations for access contained in the Project TIA No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs d) Would the Project Result in inadequate emergency access? Recommendations for access contained in the Project TIA No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the Project Cause a substantial adverse change in the 18 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Compliance with regulatory requirements No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the cr iteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Compliance with regulatory requirements No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 19 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a) Would the Project Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, , the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Compliance with RWQCB requirements and City regulations in Title 14 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Would the Project Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? General Plan Policies 5.3-G-1 through 5.3-G-1, and 5.3-I-1 through 5.3-I-3 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Would the Project Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves the project area that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project area’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Compliance with RWQCB requirements and City regulations in Title 14 No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 20 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied d) Would the Project Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Compliance with standard City conditions and regulations regarding solid waste No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs e Would the Project Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Compliance with standard City conditions and regulations regarding solid waste No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs WILDFIRE a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 21 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 22 #74246565_v1 Potential Impact Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Impact After Mitigation/General Plan Policy/Standard Condition Applied (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? None No Impact or Less Than Significant Impact, consistent with the EIRs 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit CConsistency with Impact Reducing Policies Page 1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Traffic, Circulation, and Parking 3.1-1 Significant and Unavoidable Future development under the proposed Amendment, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and would cause intersection LOS standard established by the General Plan to be exceeded. Changes to the Land Use Diagram Policy 3.4-I-17: Require that any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses in this area is in the form of pedestrian-oriented high intensity active use or mixed-use development (with active uses fronting El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor at the ground level and a range of compatible uses at upper levels and behind active uses.) •Retail or other active single use developments are allowed, provided they meet minimum FAR requirements. •For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Drive, either a mix of uses is Land Use Diagram: The Project is consistent with the Land Use Diagram’s ECRMU designation. Policy 3.4-I-17: The Project site currently contains a multiplex movie theatre and surface parking lots, and is would be redeveloped with a predominately multifamily residential mixed-use building with a density of 72.2 du/ac and pedestrian- oriented features, including retail and other ground floor active uses on the frontage of Huntington Avenue and streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. 1 Refers to the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, SCH # 2009062070. 410 Noor Mixed-Use Project City of South San Francisco April, 2020 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit C 2 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis permitted or residential use only is permitted. 3.1-2 Significant and Unavoidable Future development under the proposed Amendment, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and would cause roadway LOS standards established by the county congestion management agency to be exceeded. Same policies as identified for Impact 3.1-1. See consistency analysis for Impact 3.1-1 above. Noise 3.2-3 Less than Significant The proposed Amendment may result in development of noise- sensitive receptors in close proximity to major sources of transportation noise. Policy 9-I-4: Ensure that project applications for all new noise- sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including hospitals and residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB Policy 9-I-4: A project-specific noise study was prepared, and includes recommendations that the Project will implement to ensure an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room. See also the Noise section of the ECA and Attachment F, Exterior Noise Study to the ECA. 3 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis in any habitable room, based on the latest official SFIA noise contours and on-site measurement data. Policy 9-I-5: Ensure that project applications for new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including schools and places of assembly, proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than Leq 45 dB for the noisiest hour of normal facility operation. Policy 9-I-10 2: Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in the CNEL 70 dB+ areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria, with the exception of projects deemed Policy 9-I-5: A project-specific noise study was prepared, and includes recommendations that the Project will implement to ensure an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room at all times. See also the Noise section of the ECA and Attachment F, Exterior Noise Study to the ECA. Policy 9-I-10: The project is seeking approval using the City Council exception and the Local Agency Override process, if necessary. Additionally, the project-level noise study prepared for the Project recommends noise-reducing measures to ensure compliance with 2 We note that the EIR erroneously iden tifies this policy as Policy 9-I-11. 4 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis appropriate by the City Council and to the extent necessary, approved through the Local Agency Override process. (As proposed to be amended in connection with this project). Policy 9-I-11 3: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA- accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO), or those projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and, to the extent necessary, approved through the Local Agency Override process, to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. (As proposed to be amended in connection with this project). Land Use Policy 2-I-22: Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and the indoor noise limits of 45dB or less from exterior sources. See the Noise section of the ECA and Attachment F, Exterior Noise Study to the ECA. Policy 9-I-11: The Project will be required to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco. Policy 2-I-22: The Project is seeking approval using the City Council exception and the Local Agency Override process if necessary. 3 We note that the EIR erroneously iden tifies this policy as Policy 9-I-12 5 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport, with the exception of projects deemed appropriate by the City Council, and to the extent necessary, approved through the Local Agency Override process, consistent with the Public Utilities Code Section 21675.1 (d). (As proposed to be amended in connection with this project). Air Quality 3.3-1 Significant and Unavoidable New development under the proposed Amendment, together with regional growth, may cause VMT to increase at a faster rate than population growth and, therefore, be inconsistent with the 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy. Policy 3.4-G-74: Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non- residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment. Policy 3.4-G-7: The Project will contribute to South El Camino Real’s transformation to a vibrant corridor, by providing a combination of the following potential uses along Huntington Avenue frontage: parks/plazas, residential stoops, lobbies, gym/recreation center, leasing offices. The proposed retail 4 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-G-5. 6 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 3.4-I-17: Require that any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses in this area is in the form of pedestrian-oriented high intensity active use or mixed-use development (with active uses fronting El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor at the ground level and a range of compatible uses at upper levels and behind active uses.) • Retail or other active single use developments are allowed, provided they meet minimum FAR requirements. • For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Drive, either a mix of uses is permitted or residential use only is permitted. portion of the Project will also activate Huntington Avenue. The Project foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment by providing streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. Policy 3.4-I-17: The Project site currently contains a multiplex movie theatre and surface parking lots, and is would be redeveloped with a predominately multifamily residential mixed-use building with a density of 72.2 du/ac and pedestrian- oriented features, including retail and other ground floor active uses on the frontage of Huntington Avenue and streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. 7 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis • Active uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, airline ticket agencies, child care services, libraries, museums and galleries fronting El Camino Real at the ground level, and a range of compatible uses such as additional residential, office, and hotels/motels at upper levels and in portions not fronting El Camino Real. Policy 3.4-I-18: Require any development/ redevelopment on sites larger than 20,000 square feet at an FAR of no less than 0.6, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be devoted to active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are Policy 3.4-I-18: The Project is on a site larger than 20,000 square feet. The Project will activate Huntington Avenue by providing a combination of the following uses along its frontage: parks/plazas, residential stoops, lobbies, gym/recreation center, leasing offices, and a café. The Project provides approximately 72,000 square feet of active ground floor uses (0.35 FAR) and 8 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. Policy 3.4-I-20: Encourage concentrated higher-intensity activity on highly visible locations—such as corner sites around intersections, and adjacent to the Centennial Way Linear Park—to provide foci and identity to the South El Camino Real area as a vibrant walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment. Development around intersections and the Linear Park should comprise of buildings that define the public realm and relate to the streets, and not surface parking lots or parking structures. approximately 383,733 of floor area total, excluding subterranean parking area, (1.86 FAR). Therefore, the Project meets the active use and general FAR requirements. See the Land Use and Planning section of the ECA. Policy 3.4-I-20: The Project site, located on the corner of Huntington and Noor Avenues, currently contains a vacant multiplex movie theatre and surface parking lots. The Project proposes to redevelop this underutilized corner with a high- density predominantly multifamily residential mixed-use project. Its mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented design provides retail and other ground floor active uses on the frontage of Huntington Avenue and streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. The Project is not located near the Linear Park. Policy 3.4-I-22: The Project will merge one of the largest lots in the Planning Area with an adjacent 9 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 3.4-I-225: Maintain large lot sizes to accommodate high-intensity mixed-use development. Policy 3.4-I-246: Promote visually intricate development, using horizontal and vertical building articulation that engages pedestrians; and diversity in color, materials, scale, texture, and building volumes. parcel, and redevelop this underutilized lot with a high-density predominantly multifamily residential mixed-use project. Policy 3.4-I-24: The Project is visually intricate in its height variation (i.e., the 3 buildings are at various heights ranging from 3-5 stories). The Project provides active ground floor uses including fitness, yoga, leasing office and a corner café. Ground floor residential units are provided with stoops to the right - of-way on both street frontages. The Project’s three buildings are of varying heights and provide courtyards to create visual interest and place-making around the site. Traditional finish materials such as brick (veneer) and details like awnings and trellises provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience along grade. Additionally, the project includes a meandering sidewalk path that connects to a large open green space and a community garden to 5 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-I-20. 6 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-I-22. 10 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 3.4-I-257: Maintain an open, walkable environment throughout the area by providing space at the ground level for enhanced pedestrian connections, either through open promenades or internal semi-public pathways. encourage pedestrian circulation around the site. Policy 3.4-I-25: The Project will promote an open, walkable environment throughout the Project site by providing open space consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code, including the provision of courtyards along Huntington that are designed as a park-like sett ing with open grass space and a community garden. A meandering sidewalk path connects the open green spaces and encourages pedestrian circulation around the site. These open space elements, in conjunction with active ground floor uses and varying architectural elements create an interesting environment attracting pedestrians. Policy 3.4-I-26: The Project includes 3 curb cuts that are designed to provide safe pedestrian routes that 7 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-I-23. 11 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 3.4-I-268: Limit curb cuts along pedestrian routes, so that pedestrian circulation and safety are not compromised by vehicle access to parking. Policy 3.4-I-279: Locate parking so that it is not a dominant visual feature of t he pedestrian environment. Encourage underground parking by including all areas of a building substantially above-grade devoted to parking in maximum FAR calculations. Policy 3.4-I-28 through 29 10: Applicable to South San Francisco High School/Baden subarea. are not compromised by vehicle access to the Project site. Policy 3.4-I-27: The Project locates all of its parking within an underground garage. Policy 3.4-I-28 through 29: These policies are only applicable to projects located in South San Francisco High School/Baden subarea. The Project is located in See’s Candies/South Spruce subarea and therefore not subject to these policies. Policy 3.4-I-30: The Project will activate Huntington Avenue by providing visual interest in a combination of the following 8 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-I-24. 9 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-I-25. 10 We note that the EIR erroneousl y identifies these policies as Policy 3.4-I- 27 and Policy 3.4-I- 28. 12 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 3.4-I-3011: Require development be oriented to El Camino Real, with the ground floor of buildings designed so that pedestrians can see shops, restaurants, and activities as they walk along the sidewalk. The ground floor of buildings along Huntington, Noor, and South Spruce Avenues should also be designed to provide visual interest and promote pedestrian comfort. potential uses along its frontage: parks/plazas, residential stoops, lobbies, gym/recreation center, leasing offices. The proposed café will also activate Huntington Avenue. The Project also promotes pedestrian comfort by providing streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. The Project is not located on El Camino Real. Parks and Recreation 3.4-1 Less than Significant While future development under the proposed Amendment may result in increased demand for and use of existing parks, proposed parks will meet level of service standards. Policy 5.1-I-10: Explore methods to improve connectivity to open space and enhanced park and recreation opportunities along South El Camino Real Corridor. This is an area identified for mixed- use development, with potential addition of 2,300 residents. Possibilities to enhance open space and recreational opportunities for new residents include: Policy 5.1-I-10: While this policy is applicable on a Planning Area basis, the Project will incorporate opens space and recreational opportunities and pay the applicable parkland fees thus enhancing open space and recreational opportunities for its residents. The Project is not located adjacent to the Linear Park or the park near South San Francisco High School, and it is not located along El 11 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-I-29. 13 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis • Increasing connectivity to the South San Francisco BART linear park by improving Orange Avenue and Spruce Avenue to be more pedestrian friendly; • Working with the South San Francisco Unified School District on potential shared school/neighborhood park at the South San Francisco High School site; • Continuing in-lieu fees to provide the ability to add to parkland citywide; and • As part of Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan update, look at focused opportunities for mini-parks along South El Camino Real Corridor. Camino Real. See also the Recreation section of the ECA. Energy and Greenhouse Gases 3.6-3 Cumulatively Significant; Implementation of the proposed Amendment may increase total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in South San Francisco, compared to Policy 3.4-G-712: Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non- Policy 3.4-G-7: The Project will contribute to South El Camino Real’s transformation to a vibrant corridor, by providing a combination of the 12 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-G-5. 14 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Project Contribution Less than Significant existing conditions, but would result in fewer per capita emissions. residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment. Policy 3.4-I-17: Require that any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses in this area is in the form of pedestrian-oriented high intensity active use or mixed-use development (with active uses fronting El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor at the ground level and a range of compatible uses at upper levels and behind active uses.) •Retail or other active single use developments are allowed, provided they meet minimum FAR requirements. following potential uses along Huntington Avenue frontage: parks/plazas, residential stoops, lobbies, gym/recreation center, leasing offices. The proposed café will also activate Huntington Avenue. The Project foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment by providing streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. Policy 3.4-I-17: The Project site currently contains a multiplex movie theatre and surface parking lots, and is would be redeveloped with a predominately multifamily residential mixed-use building with a density of 72.2 du/ac and pedestrian- oriented features, including retail and other ground floor active uses on the frontage of Huntington Avenue and streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. 15 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis • For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Drive, either a mix of uses is permitted or residential use only is permitted. • Active uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, airline ticket agencies, child care services, libraries, museums and galleries fronting El Camino Real at the ground level, and a range of compatible uses such as additional residential, office, and hotels/motels at upper levels and in portions not fronting El Camino Real. Policy 3.4-I-18: Require any development/ redevelopment on sites larger than 20,000 square feet at an FAR of no less than 0.6, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured Policy 3.4-I-18: The Project is on a site larger than 20,000 square feet. The Project will activate Huntington Avenue by providing a combination of the following uses along its frontage: parks/plazas, residential 16 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis parking, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be devoted to active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. Policy 3.4-I-2213: Maintain large lot sizes to accommodate high-intensity mixed-use development. Policy 3.4-I-2514: Maintain an open, walkable environment throughout the area by providing space at the ground level for enhanced pedestrian connections, either through open stoops, lobbies, gym/recreation center, leasing offices, and a café. The Project provides approximately 72,000 square feet of active ground floor uses (0.35 FAR) and approximately 383,733 of floor area total, excluding subterranean parking area, (1.86 FAR). Therefore, the Project meets the active use and general FAR requirements. See the Land Use and Planning section of the ECA. Policy 3.4-I-22: The Project will merge one of the largest lots in the Planning Area with an adjacent parcel, and redevelop this underutilized lot with a high-density predominantly multifamily residential mixed-use project. Policy 3.4-I-25: The Project will promote an open, walkable environment throughout the Project 13 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-1-20. 14 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-1-23. 17 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis promenades or internal semi-public pathways. Policy 3.4-I-2115: Establish development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for South El Camino Real: • Require a minimum percentage of the frontage of a site to be devoted to active uses. Ensure that depth and height of the provided space is adequate to accommodate a variety of tenants and provide flexibility for the future. site by providing open space consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code, including the provision of courtyards along Huntington that are designed as a park-like sett ing with open grass space and a community garden. A meandering sidewalk path connects the open green spaces and encourages pedestrian circulation around the site. These open space elements, in conjunction with active ground floor uses and varying architectural elements create an interesting environment attracting pedestrians. Policy 3.4-I-21: The Project is consistent with the Zoning Code. See the Land Use and Planning section of the ECA. • The Zoning Code provides a minimum percentage requirement for active uses on frontages along El Camino Real only. However, the Project provides active uses 15 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-1-26. 18 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis •Allow buildings up to 80 feet by right , and up to 120 feet (along with a higher FAR as specified in Chapter 2) based on discretionary design review and approval by the Planning Commission. •Maintain a consistent building base/streetwall along El Camino Real and side streets. •Maintain build-to lines, with step-backs to minimize bulk. along Huntington Avenue in compliance with the Zoning Code’s minimum FAR requirement for active uses on lots greater than 20,000 square feet. •The Project is consistent with the ECRMU designation’s height limit. •The Project will redevelop a surface parking lot with a high-intensity predominantly residential mixed-use project that will maintain a consistent building base along the Project site’s street frontage. •Project reduces bulk by providing three distinct buildings with varying number of floors. The buildings maintain spacing greater than required by the Zoning Code with the closest buildings providing 60 feet of separation (double the 19 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis • Require buildings to be finely articulated and visually engaging. minimum). To reduce bulk, the longest bu ilding is configured as an “E” shape with three street frontage facades divided by two large courtyards. Additional ly, the Project includes vertical design elements, such as material changes and changes in plane and bay windows to modulate the building and reduce perceived bulk. • The Project provides high- quality design and develops three buildings with varying heights and massing to create visual r elief. Visual Resources 3.7-1 Less than Significant Future development under the proposed Amendment may degrade the existing visual character of the Planning Area and affect scenic views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains. Changes to Figure 2.3 of the General Plan Policy 3.4-G-716: Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non- Land Use Diagram: The Project is consistent with the amended height requirements contained in Figure 2.3 of the General Plan. Policy 3.4-G-7: The Project will contribute to South El Camino Real’s transformation to a vibrant corridor, 16 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-G-5. 20 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment. Policy 3.4-I-2417: Promote visually intricate development, using horizontal and vertical building articulation that engages pedestrians; and diversity in color, materials, scale, texture, and building volumes. by providing a combination of the following potential uses along Huntington Avenue frontage: parks/plazas, residential stoops, lobbies, gym/recreation center, leasing offices. The proposed café will also activate Huntington Avenue. The Project foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment by providing streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. Policy 3.4-I-24: The Project is visually intricate in its height variation (i.e., the 3 buildings are at various heights ranging from 3-5 stories). The Project provides active ground floor uses including fitness, yoga, leasing office and a corner café. Ground floor residential units are provided with stoops to the right - of-way on both street frontages. The Project’s three buildings are of varying heights and provide courtyards to create visual interest and place-making around the site. 17 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-I-22. 21 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 3.4-I-2518: Maintain an open, walkable environment throughout the area by providing space at the ground level for enhanced pedestrian connections, either through open promenades or internal semi-public pathways. Traditional finish materials such as brick (veneer) and details like awnings and trellises provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience along grade. Additionally, the project includes a meandering sidewalk path that connects to a large open green space and a community garden to encourage pedestrian circulation around the site. Policy 3.4-I-25: The Project will promote an open, walkable environment throughout the Project site by providing open space consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code, including the provision of courtyards along Huntington that are designed as a park-like sett ing with open grass space and a community garden. A meandering sidewalk path connects the open green spaces and encourages pedestrian circulation around the site. These open space elements, in conjunction with active ground floor uses and varying 18 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-I-23. 22 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 3.4-I-2119: Establish development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for South El Camino Real: •Require a minimum percentage of the frontage of a site to be devoted to active uses. Ensure that depth and height of the provided space is adequate to accommodate a variety of tenants and provide flexibility for the future. •Allow buildings up to 80 feet by right, and up to 120 feet (along with a higher FAR as specified in Chapter 2) based on discretionary design review and approval by the Planning Commission. •Maintain a consistent building base/streetwall along architectural elements create an interesting environment attracting pedestrians. Policy 3.4-I-21: The Project is consistent with the Zoning Code. See the Land Use and Planning section of the ECA. •The Zoning Code provides a minimum percentage requirement for active uses on frontages along El Camino Real only. However, the Project provides active uses along Huntington Avenue in compliance with the Zoning Code’s minimum FAR requirement for active uses on lots greater than 20,000 square feet. •The Project is consistent with the ECRMU designation’s height limit. 19 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-1-26. 23 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis El Camino Real and side streets. • Maintain build-to lines, with step-backs to minimize bulk. • Require buildings to be finely articulated and visually engaging. • The Project will redevelop a surface parking lot with a high-intensity predominantly residential mixed-use project that will maintain a consistent building base along the Project site’s street frontage. • Project reduces bulk by providing three distinct buildings with varying number of floors. The buildings maintain spacing greater than required by the Zoning Code with the closest buildings providing 60 feet of separation (double the minimum). To reduce bulk, the longest bu ilding is configured as an “E” shape with three street frontage facades divided by two large courtyards. Additional ly, the Project includes vertical design elements, such as material changes and changes in plane and bay windows to modulate the building and reduce perceived bulk. 24 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis • The Project provides high- quality design and develops three buildings with varying heights and massing to create visual relief. Population and Housing 3.8-2 Less than Significant Implementation of the proposed Amendment may displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs. Policy 3.4-I-17: Require that any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses in this area is in the form of pedestrian-oriented high intensity active use or mixed-use development (with active uses fronting El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor at the ground level and a range of compatible uses at upper levels and behind active uses.) • Retail or other active single use developments are allowed, provided they meet minimum FAR requirements. • For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Drive, either a mix of uses is permitted or residential use only is permitted. Policy 3.4-I-17: The Project site currently contains a multiplex movie theatre and surface parking lots, and is would be redeveloped with a predominately multifamily residential mixed-use building with a density of 72.2 du/ac and pedestrian- oriented features, including retail and other ground floor active uses on the frontage of Huntington Avenue and streetscape improvements like sidewalk widening, landscaping and lighting. 25 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis • Active uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, airline ticket agencies, child care services, libraries, museums and galleries fronting El Camino Real at the ground level, and a range of compatible uses such as additional residential, office, and hotels/motels at upper levels and in portions not fronting El Camino Real. Poli cy 3.4-I-18: Require any development/ redevelopment on sites larger than 20,000 square feet at an FAR of no less than 0.6, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be devoted to active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are Policy 3.4-I-18: The Project is on a site larger than 20,000 square feet. The Project will activate Huntington Avenue by providing a combination of the following uses along its frontage: parks/plazas, residential stoops, lobbies, gym/recreation center, leasing offices, and a café. The Project provides approximately 72,000 square feet of active ground floor uses (0.35 FAR) and 26 #73275525_v1 CONSISTENCY WITH IMPACT REDUCING POLICIES Impact #1 Impact Impact-Reducing Policies Consistency Analysis restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. Policy 3.4-I-2120: Establish development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for South El Camino Real: •Require a minimum percentage of the frontage of a site to be devoted to active uses. Ensure that depth and height of the provided space is adequate to accommodate a variety of tenants and provide flexibility for the future. approximately 383,733 of floor area total, excluding subterranean parking area, (1.86 FAR). Therefore, the Project meets the active use and general FAR requirements. See the Land Use and Planning section of the ECA. Policy 3.4-I-21: The Project is consistent with the Zoning Code. See the Land Use and Planning section of the ECA. •The Zoning Code provides a minimum percentage requirement for active uses on frontages along El Camino Real only. However, the Project provides active uses along Huntington Avenue in compliance with the Zoning Code’s minimum FAR requirement for active uses on lots greater than 20,000 square feet. 3518210.1 20 We note that the EIR erroneously identifies this policy as Policy 3.4-1-26. 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit D Infill Checklist 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Project Page 1 CEQA APPENDIX N: INFILL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1.Project title: 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Development 2.Lead agency name and address: City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 3.Contact person: Adena Friedman, Senior Planner 4.Project location: 410 Noor Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 5.Project sponsor's name and address: Glen Ceridono, Senior Vice President, SyRES Properties LLC, 150 Pelican Way, San Rafael, CA 94901 6.General plan designation: El Camino Real Mixed Use 7. Zoning: El Camino Real Mixed Use 8.Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (including State Clearinghouse Number ifassigned): The South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, SCH # 2009062070. 9.Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project: See Figure A - South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR Planning Area, below. 10.Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary,support, or off- site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Project proposes to redevelop theProject site with three mixed use, but predominantly residential, buildings totaling 556,943 square feet, with 342 multi-family rental units,approximately 8,500 square feet of amenities (i.e, a fitness center, a yoga studio, club rooms, a business center and bike rooms), a 1,141 square-foot cafe, and 476 underground parking spaces. The Project’s 342 multi-family apartments would be a mix of studios, 1-bedroom units, and 2-bedroom units with stoops along Huntington and Noor Avenues. The Project will include on Huntington and Noor Avenues approximately 77,000 square feet of open space, including publicly accessible plazas along Huntington Avenue that would provide a park -like setting. The café, amenity space, and publicly accessible plazas, totaling over 72,000 square feet, and the residential stoops will further activate Huntington and Noor Avenues. The Project proposes two buildings on Parcel 1: one would consist of one level of underground parking and 3 floors of residential uses, and the otherwould consist of two levels of underground parking and 5 floors of residential use. There is one building proposed for Parcel 2 and it would consist ofone level of underground parking, with 4 floors of residential uses. 11.Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings, including any prior uses of the project site, or, if vacant, describe the urban uses that exist on at least 75% of the project’s perimeter: The Project site currently contains a vacant multiplex movietheatre with access provided by three two-way vehicular entrances provided from Huntington Avenue, and two provided from Noor Avenue. The multiplex movie theatre is housed in a 51,100 sf building surrounded by surface parking lots.. The Project site is surrounded by large and small commercial retail tenants, a hotel, surface parking, and offices, and is located within ½ mile of the San Bruno BART and Caltrain Station. 12.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)City: The Project requires CEQA clearance, a Conditional Use Permit (reduction of parking, and increased density under the incentives program for ECRMU districts), Design Review (high-quality design), and a lot merger under the Subdivision Map Act. State Water Resources Control Board: The Project requires clearance under the Construction General Permit (defined below). Bay Area Air Quality Management District: The Project requires clearance for the backup generator. 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Project Page 2 FIGURE A – South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR Planning Area 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Project Page 3 SATISFACTION OF APPENDIX M PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Provide the information demonstrating that the infill project satisfies the performance standards in Appendix M below. For mixed-use projects, the predominant use will determine which performance standards apply to the entire project. 1.Does the non-residential infill project include a renewable energy feature? If so, describe below. If not, explain below why it is notfeasible to do so. Not applicable. The Project is a mixed-use project that is predominantly residential. Since this on-site renewable power generation requirementapplies to non-residential projects only, it does not apply to the Project. 2.If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, either provide documentation ofremediation or describe the recommendations provided in a preliminary endangerment assessment or comparable document that will beimplemented as part of the project. Not applicable. The South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR states that its Planning Area does not contain any sites included on any listcompiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (EIR, p. 3.9-28.) A search of the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker andDepartment of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor databases this is still true for the Project site. See also the Hazards and Hazardous Materialssection of the 410 Noor Avenue Environmental Consistency Assessment. 3.If the infill project includes residential units located within 500 feet, or such distance that the local agency or local air district has determined is appropriate based on local conditions, a high volume roadway or stationary source of air pollution, as defined in Appendix M, describe the measures that the project will implement to protect public health. Such measures may include policies and standards identified in thelocal general plan, specific plans, zoning code or community risk reduction plan, or measures recommended in a health risk assessment, to promote the protection of public health. Identify the policies or standards, or refer to the site specific analysis, below. (Attach additionalsheets if necessary.) The Project is not located within 500 feet of a high volume roadway or stationary source of air pollution as defined by Appendix M. 4.For residential projects, the project satisfies which of the following? ☐Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. ☒Located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. See Figure – Proximity to Major Transit Stop. ☐Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. ☐Consists of 300 or fewer units that are each affordable to low income households. 5.For commercial projects with a single building floor -plate below 50,000 square feet, the project satisfies which of the following? ☐Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. (Attach VMT map.) ☐The project is within one-half mile of 1800 dwelling units. (Attach map illustrating proximity to households.) 6.For office building projects, the project satisfies which of the following? ☐Located within a low vehicle travel area, as defined in Appendix M. [Attach VMT map.) ☐Located within 1/2 mile of an existing major transit stop or within 1/4 of a stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map illustrating proximity to transit) 7.For school projects, the project does all of the following: ☐The project complies with the requirements in Sections 17213, 17213.1 and 17213.2 of the California Education Code. 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Project 4 #55589721_v2 ☐The project is an elementary school and is within one mile of 50% of the student population, or is a middle school or high school and is within two miles of 50% of the student population. Alternatively, the school is with ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. (Attach map and methodology.) ☐The project provides parking and storage for bicycles and scooters. 8.For small walkable community projects, the project must be a residential project that has a density of at least eight units to the acre or a commercial project with a floor area ration of at least 0.5, or both. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The infill project could potentially result in one or more of the following environmental effects. ☐Aesthetics ☐Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐Air Quality ☐Biological Resources ☐Cultural Resources ☐Geology / Soils ☐Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☐Hydrology / Water Quality ☐Land Use / Planning ☐Mineral Resources ☐Noise ☐Population/Housing ☐Public Services ☐Recreation ☐Transportation/Traffic ☐Utilities / Service Systems ☐Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION- (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ☒I find that the proposed infill project WOULD NOT have any significant effects on the environment that ether have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, CEQA does not apply to such effects. A Not ice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed. ☐I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior El R, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or t the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared. ☐I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIESENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared. ☐I find that the proposed infill project would have effects trial either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that those effects WOULD be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required le analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA. _____________________________________________________ __________________________________ Signature Date EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INFILL PROJECTS: A comparative analysis of project-specific impacts and those evaluated by the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR, The General Plan EIR, and the Plan Bay Area EIR is incorporated in this Infill Environmental Checklist Form (see 410 Noor Avenue Environmental Consistency Assessment). The substantial evidence included in the 410 Noor Avenue Environmental Consistency Analysis supports the conclusion that the 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Development Project would not result in any new significant effects on the environment that have not either already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. 410 Noor Avenue Mixed-Use Project Page 6 Vicinity to Major Transit Stop 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit E Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist Page 1 CAP Consistency Checklist Project Information for New Development Appendix E to the Climate Action Plan provides project-specific checklists that enable the City to monitor progress on development-level measures. As indicated in Appendix E, the checklists are intended to provide flexibility to modify requirements depending on the project and available information. The Project’s consistency with the majority of the measures identified in the standard checklist is provided below. CAP Measure for New Development Project Component Consistent with Measure Does the project include bicycle facilities (e.g., bicycle lanes, parking, lockers)? Yes. The Project includes various bicycle facilities, including bicycle parking (86 long-term, 68 short-term spaces), a bicycle sharing program, a bike station, and a new bicycle lane on Huntington Avenue. Will the project support bike sharing/rental programs? Yes. The Project will provide a bike sharing/rental program. Will there be a commute shuttle or public transit stop on-site or within 500 feet? Yes. The Project is within 500 feet of SamTrans Route 141. Is the project within ¼ mile of a Caltrain or BART stop? No. The Project is within ½ mile of the San Bruno BART Station. Will the project include high-density housing and a diverse range of housing? Yes. The Project’s 342 multi-family apartments consists of a mix of studios, 1-bedroom units, and 2-bedroom units. On a 4.74 acre lot, the Project provides a density of 72.2 dwelling units per acre. Will the project provide traffic calming treatments? Yes. The Project will provide a new bicycle lane on Huntington Avenue, and other potential traffic calming measures as directed by the City and required by conditions of approval. Is the project paying a traffic impact fee to fund bicycles and pedestrian improvements? Yes. The Project will pay the applicable impact fee to fund bicycles and pedestrian improvements Will the project provide shared or reduced parking? Yes. The Project will apply for a parking reduction under the Zoning Code. Will the project provide designated parking spaces for EV, carpool vehicles, or other low- emissions vehicles? Yes. The Project will provide 19 designated spaces for EV, carpool, and other low-emission vehicles. Will the project have any ground-level commercial space? Yes. The Project will provide approximately 8,500 square feet of non-residential space on the ground floor level, including a fitness center, a yoga studio, club rooms, a business center and bike rooms. Additionally, a 1,141 square-foot café will be provided as part of the Project. Does the project include any alternative-fuel stations? No. The Project will not provide charging stations, however, it will provide designated parking spaces for alternative-fuel vehicles. Will the project have any pre-wiring or conduit construction to easily add electric vehicle charging stations or alternative energy facilities at a later date? Yes. The Project will provide pre-wiring/conduit construction. Page 2 CAP Measure for New Development Project Component Consistent with Measure If this project is replacing an existing building, is the building being replaced more than 30 years old? Yes. The building on the site was built in 1985, and is over 32 years old. Will certification of the building be sought under LEED or other green building criteria? No. The Project will not be LEED certified. Will the project include any high-reflectivity (“cool”) roof or surface paving? Yes. The Project will provide “cool” roof design and will use pavers that comply with Planning Code § 20.090.006(5)(a). Will there be a net increase in the number of mature trees on-site once the project is completed? Yes. The Project will result in a net increase in the number of mature trees on-site. Will any renewable energy system be installed as part of this project? No. The Project is a residential mixed-use project and does not provide any renewable energy systems. Is the project a new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more? Yes. The Project will provide approximately 8,500 square feet of non-residential space on the ground floor level, including a fitness center, a yoga studio, club rooms, a business center and bike rooms. Additionally, a 1,141 square-foot café will be provided as part of the Project. Will this project use renewable energy generated off-site? No. The Project is a residential mixed-use project and does not provide any off-site renewable energy generation. Will there be composting collection on-site? Yes. There will be composting collection on-site. Will any water fixtures exceed CALGreen standards? No. The Project will meet but not exceed the CALGreen standards. Will the project incorporate low-impact development (LID) practices? Yes. The project will incorporate low-impact development practices. Will any xeriscaping be installed? Yes. The Project will require minimal irrigation. Will captured rainwater or graywater be used for irrigation? No. The Project will not capture rainwater or graywater for irrigation. 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit F Arborist Report 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit G Environmental Site Assessment, Executive Summary SYRES PROPERTIES ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Fugro Document No. 04.72170020-PR-001(Rev.00) Page iv of vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted by Fugro USA Land, Inc. (Fugro) for a property located at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, California (Site). The Site is further identified as San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 01483220, 014183230, and 01483270. On behalf of the SyRes Properties, Fugro completed this ESA in accordance with our proposal dated April 24, 2017, as authorized on April 28, 2017. To conduct this ESA, Fugro generally followed the scope and limitations of ASTM Standards E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. Any significant exceptions or deviations from these standards are described in Section 1.4 of this report. SITE RECONNAISSANCE FINDING The Site consists of an approximate 4.3-acre “L”-shaped piece of land with the physical address of 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The Site is generally level, but the parking lots slope downward to the north. The southern portion of the Site is approximately 5 feet higher than the surrounding properties. A concrete block retaining wall facilitates the change in grade between the southern portion of the Site and neighboring property to the northwest A total of one (1) structure was observed at the Site during the reconnaissance in May 15, 2017. This structure is a vacant, high one-story cinema building with 12 individual movie theaters, and a mezzanine which was used for projection rooms. The building has not been in use since approximately 2007/2008, and renovations including removal of all projection equipment and screens, along with most of the seats and all office and concession equipment, carpets, wallboard, and some ceiling materials has been completed. The building shell is composed of partially painted masonry block. The roof is low slope plywood covered by asphalt sheets, tar and gravel. Heating, ventilation and cooling equipment is located on the roof. Two painted metal doomed theater roofs were also observed. At the time of our site reconnaissance, no electrical service was available and the interior observations were made with the use of a flashlight or natural lighting as available. Accessible areas observed showed signs of an ongoing renovation/repair project with small quantities of supplies/materials present. Various liquids and roofing mastic were observed stored in retail containers both inside and on the roof, however some containers were not covered. These materials are not considered an environmental concern to the Site, but should be transported off-site to a licensed disposal recycling facility. Two locked electrical cabinets, believed to contain transformers and/or switching gear were observed at the southwest corner of the theater building. No labels suggesting the contents of the cabinets were observed. Concrete sidewalks and drainage swales were observed surrounding the theater property building. Asphalt-paved parking areas with landscaping were also observed to the north, south, and east. Asphalt-paved entry to the parking areas was present along the west side of the building. Storm drain catch basins where observed in the parking lot areas. ATTACHMENT G SYRES PROPERTIES ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Fugro Document No. 04.72170020-PR-001(Rev.00) Page v of vi In addition to the structure, the Site also encompasses two surface parking lots which are located north of the east side of the theater building. No significant evidence of stains or evidence of releases were noted on pavement in the parking areas. Minor oil stains and paint overspray was observed in select locations. Fugro considers the minor staining to be de minimis conditions which warrant no further assessment or remediation. Evidence of public utility easements were observed at the south west corner of the property where water and electrical service tie-ins were present, and along the northern property boundary just beyond the theater building where both a concrete v-ditch storm drain and sanitary sewer manholes were observed. Oil staining was also observed in portions of the concrete v-ditch located north of the west side of the theater building. Fugro did not observe any distressed vegetation on the Site. Additionally, no significant solid waste storage or dumping was observed. Fugro also conducted a visual observation of adjoining or neighboring properties. The Site is bordered by: a vacant retail/commercial building and a three-story professional office building to the north; a retail building to the west; and thoroughfares to the south and east, followed by retail/commercial buildings. No evidence of recognized environmental conditions (REC) were observed on the Site or adjoining properties during the site reconnaissance. SITE HISTORY FINDING According to a review of available historical documentation, the Site was undeveloped or in agricultural use from 1896 until between 1939 and 1943 when a small oval shaped building associated with the Tanforan horse racing track was erected in the southern section of the property. In 1942 the Tanforan Race Track was re-purposed as a Japanese Assembly Center for the relocation of Japanese and American’s of Japanese ancestry. Reports of the Center indicate that City water/sewer service was available on the property. In 1946 and 1950 the northern portion of the Site was occupied by a portion of a residential subdivision, possibly temporary military housing. The 1956 aerial photograph shows the northern residential structures have been removed, and additional buildings resembling long warehouse/stable buildings in the southern portion of the Site. The Site and surrounding area appears relatively unchanged in 1963. By 1968 historical topographic maps and aerial photos show the Site as vacant graded land. City directories had no listings for the Site in 1980 or 1985. By 1987 the Century Plaza multi-plex is present on the property. The 1990 City directory lists Century Plaza at 410 Noor Avenue. According to interviews, Century Plaza operated until 2007-2008 when it was vacated. Between 2012 and 2014 renovations that removed screens, projection equipment, seats, wall board and carpets were completed. Based on the relatively low risk from these identified uses, the past use of the Site is not considered an environmental concern. Fugro also conducted historical research of adjoining or neighboring properties. The surrounding properties were in race track/ assembly center use or undeveloped/agricultural use from 1915 to 1968. By 1968 historical topographic maps and aerial photos show the current retail grocery store building located northwest. By 1980 the PacBell facility across Huntington Avenue is listed in City directories and in 1982, it is visible in aerial photographs. By 1987 south SYRES PROPERTIES ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Fugro Document No. 04.72170020-PR-001(Rev.00) Page vi of vi across Noor Avenue is a retail structure, similar in configuration to the current Lowes Home Center, under construction, and east across Huntington Avenue are the multi-tenant office buildings. No RECs were identified during historical research. REGULATORY AGENCY FINDING The Site address of 410 Noor Avenue is not listed in the environmental database report. Three nearby properties appear on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database. All three of these former fueling facilities have had their USTs removed. One listed site located more than 600 feet northwest from the Site is open and under assessment and remediation, while the other two are considered closed by the regulatory agencies. At the open facility, there are no petroleum impacted monitoring wells closer than 500 feet from the Site. None of these facilities are considered RECs for the Site based on their distance and regulatory status’. All other listed facilities are not considered RECs based on their distance and regulatory status. Two orphan Sites were identified to be located within the search radii, but these are not considered RECs based on their distance and direction. CONCLUSIONS Fugro has performed this Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 for the on-site property located at 410 Noor Avenue. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no RECs, CRECs, HRECs or vapor intrusion concerns at the Site. However, the following items were identified as part of this assessment: ■ Construction quality and consistency of fills placed historically to raise site grades is unknown. Gravel composed of serpentine bedrock materials is known to have been used in the area. Serpentine contains naturally occurring asbestos. Current regulations require checking asbestos content in construction fills prior to removal or grading. ■ There are small volumes of paints, roofing tars, and other maintenance products on the Site. These materials should be transported off-site to a licensed disposal or recycling facility. ■ A 1998 hazardous Material Building Survey identified roofing material as asbestos containing material (ACM), and assumed other, not sampled material including marble grout, mirror mastic, floor tile grout and mortar, theater ceiling tiles contained ACM. The survey also identified pink paint on brick at west end of hallway and varnish on wood panels in Theater 1 as containing lead. The 1998 survey was not a pre-demolition survey. All suspect ACM and lead-based paint (LBP) should be properly assessed and abated prior to the demolition of the existing building. 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit H Environmental Noise Study 410 Noor Residences South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Prepared for: Glen Ceridono SyRES Properties 150 Pelican Way San Rafael, CA 94901 Email gceridono@syresproperties.com Prepared by: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. Valerie Smith, PE – Senior Associate 130 Sutter Street, Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.397.0442 Email: valerie.smith@cmsalter.com Salter Project Number: 19-0338 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION We have conducted an environmental noise study for the proposed project at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco. This study is an update to the 2017 noise study prepared by Papadimos Group 1 and includes updated on-site noise measurements. This report is broken into the following sections: • Section 1.0 – Introduction • Section 2.0 – Acoustical Criteria • Section 3.0 – Noise Environment • Section 4.0 – Recommendations • Appendix A – Fundamentals of Environmental Acoustics • Appendix B – SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated • Appendix C – 2019 SFO Noise Contour Map, with Project Site Indicated • Appendix D – July 2019 Airport Director’s Report, with Project Site and Nearby Monitors Indicated • Appendix E – 2017 Noise Study prepared by Papadimos Group Those readers not familiar with the fundamental concepts of environmental noise may refer to Appendix A and Figure A1 for additional information. 1.1 E xecutive S ummary The proposed project at 410 Noor Avenue will consist of three buildings, located near the corner of Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue in South San Francisco. This noise study serves as an update to the 2017 noise study prepared by Papadimos Group (contained in Appendix E). In summary: • Updated on-site noise measurements were consistent with the measurements conducted by Papadimos Group. The on-site noise measurements include both traffic and aircraft noise sources. • The project site is located near the CNEL 2 65 to 70 dB contours for airport noise for the three available site noise contour maps (See Section 3.2 and Appendices B, C, and D for further information). • Per the South San Francisco Noise Element, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the “latest quarterly noise contour report to determine the compatibility of land use plans”. This quarterly noise contour is shown in Appendix D. The 2019 2nd Quarter contours indicate the site is outside of the CNEL 70 dB contour for airport noise. • The project can achieve the State Building Code standard of CNEL 45 dB indoors with the use of commercially-available windows and conventional wood-frame construction. 1 410 Noor Avenue Development Exterior Noise Study DRAFT, prepared by Papadimos Group, dated 25 September 2017. See Appendix E 2 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. CNEL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. CNEL penalizes sound levels by 5 dB during the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the CNEL and DNL are usually interchangeable. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 3 2.0 ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA 2.1 State Noise Standards Section 1207 of the 2016 California Building Code requires that the indoor noise level in multi-family residences not exceed CNEL 45 dB. 2.2 City Noise Standards The City also has the following related policies: • Policy 9-I-1: Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. • Policy 9-I-2: Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls. • Policy 9-I-4: Ensure that project applications for all new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including hospitals and residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room, based on the latest official SFIA noise contours 3 and on-site noise measurement data. • Policy 9-I-6: Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. • Policy 9-I-7: Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. • Policy 9-I-10: Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in 70+ dB CNEL areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria. • Policy 9-I-11: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA- accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. The City of South San Francisco’s Noise Element notes that the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will need to approve new development prior to permit issuance. The Noise Element identifies the following ALUC land-use compatibility guidelines for residential land use: 3 We understand the latest noise contours are the 2019 2nd Quarter noise contours. See Appendix C. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 4 Table 1: Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria Less than 65 dB Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 65 to 70 dB Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Over 70 dB Development should not be undertaken To determine if a site is in an aircraft noise-impacted area, the ALUC determines the CNEL 65 dB boundary using the following resources: • The federal CNEL 65 dB boundary is determined using the most recent noise exposure map (NEM) as accepted by the FAA under the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. At this time, the latest accepted NEM is the Final 2019 Noise Exposure Map 4. This map is included in Appendix C with the project site indicated. • The state CNEL 65 dB boundary is determined from the quarterly noise contours, based on the required airport noise monitoring system. Appendix D contains the 2019 2nd Quarter noise contour overlay, as well as the directors report with the approximate location of the project site indicated. Per the Noise Element, the ALUC uses the latest quarterly noise contour to determine the compatibility of land use plans. Appendix D contains the 2019 2nd Quarter Noise Contour overlay. 2.3 SFO Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Table IV-I of the November 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport contains the following polices and compatibility criteria for evaluating multi-family residential land uses. • Policy NP-1 Noise Compatibility Zones: For the purposes of the ALUCP, the projected 2020 CNEL noise contour map from the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Runway Safety Area Program shall define the boundaries within which noise compatibility policies described in this Section shall apply. • Policy NP-2 Airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria: The compatibility of proposed land uses located in the Airport noise compatibility zones shall be determined according to the noise/land use compatibility criteria shown in Table IV-1 [excepts shown below as Table 2]. The criteria indicate the maximum accepted airport noise levels, described in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), for the indicated land uses. The compatibility criteria indicate whether a proposed land use is “compatible”, “conditionally compatible”, or “not compatible” within each zone, designated by the identified CNEL ranges. 4 Per www.flysfo.com, this NEM was submitted for approval in July 2018. The Final 2019 map is dated 13 August 2015. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 5 Table 2: ALUCP Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria CNEL Range Land Use Less than 65 dB Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. 65 to 70 dB Land use and related structures are permitted, provided that sound insulation is provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dB or lower and that an avigation easement is granted to the City and County of San Francisco as operator of SFO. 70 dB to 75 dB Land use and related structures are not compatible. However, use is conditionally compatible only on an existing lot of record zoned only for residential use as of the effective date of the ALUCP. Use must be sound-insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. Over 75 dB Land use and related structures are not compatible • Policy NP-4 Residential Uses Within CNEL 70 dB Contour: As described in Table IV-1, residential uses are not compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB and typically should not be allowed in high noise areas. o Policy NP-4.1 Situations Where Residential Use is Conditionally Compatible: Residential uses are considered conditionally compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB only if the proposed use is on a lot of record zoned exclusively for residential use as of the effective date of the ALUCP. In such a case, the residential use must be sound-insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. The property owner also shall grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco in accordance with Policy NP-3 prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed building or structure. 3.0 NOISE ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Project Description The project is located on the corner of Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue in South San Francisco. The project consists of three buildings: Building A is located along Huntington Avenue, Building C is located at the corner of Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue, and Building B is between these Buildings A and C. The noise environment at the site is predominantly controlled by vehicular traffic and aircraft overflights. To quantify the existing noise environment, we conducted two long-term noise measurements between 30 May and 5 June 2019 (see Figure 1 for the measurement locations and measured noise levels). The monitors were located at a height of 12 feet above grade. Data from the on-site noise measurements include traffic from local streets, as well as aircraft noise from SFO. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 6 3.2 Noise from SFO Per the published resources, the site is exposed to the following noise levels from SFO airport: • November 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: Exhibit IV-6 shows the majority of the site within the CNEL 70 dB contour. This exhibit references noise contours provided in 2011. See Appendix B for the project site location. • Final 2019 Noise Exposure Map: Appendix C contains the Part 150 map generated by the San Francisco International Airport. Per the exhibit, it was submitted on 13 August 2015. This exhibit references sources from 2014 for the creation of the noise contours. Salter has added an overlay of the project site to the Part 150 map to clarify the project location. Per this map, the majority of the project site is located within the CNEL 65 to 70 dB contour. A portion of Building C will be located at the edge of the CNEL 70 dB contour. • July 2019 Airport Director’s Report: Per this overlay 5, the project site is fully within the CNEL 65 to 70 dB contour. This information is based on 2019 noise monitoring. See Appendix D for the approximate site location. GIS maps of historical quarterly noise reports are not available at this time. We have reviewed the noise levels provided in the monthly Airport Director’s Reports dating back to March 2017. For the three noise monitors closest to the project site, noise levels are generally below CNEL 70 dB. The graph below shows the monthly measured noise levels since March 2017. Detailed information is provided in Appendix D, along with information on the noise monitor locations. 5 SFO 2nd Quarter CNEL Overlay, received as a Google Earth (“.kmz”) file on 24 September 2019 from the SFO Aircraft Noise Abatement Office. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctober2017 2018 2019Measured CNEL (dB)Data from Airport Noise Director's Reports (March 2017 to October 2019) Site 4 (SSF)Site 6 (SSF)Site 14 (SSF) CNEL 70 dB 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 7 3.3 Site Noise Context The main noise sources at the project site include car pass-bys on the nearby roadways and aircraft overflights from SFO. We conducted noise measurements at the project site (see Figure 1), which collected noise data from both the car pass-bys and the aircraft overflights. We measured on-site noise levels of CNEL 72 dB at the project site (see Figure 1), which is consistent with the noise measurements conducted in 2017 by the Papadimos Group (see Appendix E). Since both car and aircraft noise exist at the site, we have referenced the Airport Director’s Report to determine the aircraft contribution to noise at the site. The Airport Director’s Report summarizes the noise data from 29 noise monitors managed by the airport that continuously collect noise data. In general, these airport noise monitors are located away from major roadways, reducing the amount of traffic noise that is collected (see data for aircraft noise presented in Appendix D), so that the airport contribution can be determined. Using the 2019 June Airport Director’s Report, the contribution of airport noise at the site is expected to approximately CNEL 69 dB 6. Logarithmically, subtracting the aircraft contribution from our noise measurements would result in a noise level of approximately CNEL 69 dB from traffic: CNEL 72a dB [from aircraft+traffic] – CNEL 69b dB [from aircraft] = CNEL 69c dB [from traffic] a = measured at project site, see Figure 1 b = determined from 2019 July Airport Director’s Report c = calculated See Appendix A for additional information on decibel mathematics. Individual aircraft flyovers from SFO are significantly louder than individual car pass-bys, but the flyovers occur at a lower frequency than the car pass-bys, resulting in similar average overall noise levels (CNEL). For reference, CNEL above 70 dB are common along large roadways and rail lines. Figure 9-2 of the South San Francisco Noise Element indicates that noise levels in South San Francisco were estimated to be above CNEL 70 dB in 2006 in the vicinity of I-280, I-380, US 101, and along the Caltrain line. Recent noise measurements indicate that noise levels are above CNEL 70 dB along portions of Linden Avenue in South San Francisco and along El Camino Real on the peninsula. 6 The project site is near Airport Noise Monitors 04, 06, and 14. We have referenced Monitor 04 for this CNEL level. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Page 8 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS We used the Progress Set of Drawings dated 23 May 2019 for the unit dimensions and locations. We calculated the window and exterior door STC 7 ratings needed to meet the project criteria. We understand that there are various facades where glazing is still in development. For these facades, we used similar units with maximum glazing percentages to estimate STC ratings. 4.1 Residential Recommendations For our calculations, we assumed that all rooms will have hard-surfaced flooring and all exterior wall assemblies achieve STC 45 at a minimum (e.g., 3-coat stucco, siding over one layer of cement board and one layer of plywood sheathing). To meet the indoor DNL 45 dB criterion, it will be necessary for the windows and exterior doors to have STC ratings as shown in Figure 2 and 3. The recommended STC ratings are for full window assemblies (glass and frame) rather just the glass itself. Tested sound-rated assemblies should be used. For reference, typical construction-grade windows generally achieve STC 28. Where STC ratings are above 32, at least one pane of glass should be laminated. Where windows need to be closed to achieve an indoor CNEL of 45 dB, an alternative method of supplying fresh air (e.g., mechanical ventilation) should be considered. This issue should be discussed with the project mechanical engineer. 4.2 Exterior Recommendations The project site has outdoor-use spaces in the following locations: • Courtyard A1, exposed to Huntington Avenue • Courtyard A2, exposed to Huntington Avenue • Courtyard B1, enclosed within the B building At Courtyards A1 and A2, exterior noise levels are estimated to be approximately CNEL 69 dB due to traffic. At Courtyard B1, exterior noise levels are estimated to be approximately CNEL 60 dB due to traffic. Policy 9-I-7 notes that exterior noise levels should be reduced to CNEL 65 dB where site conditions permit. This noise level is met at Courtyard B1 without mitigation. At Courtyards A1 and A2, a six-foot barrier would be needed along the roadway to reduce noise from Huntington Avenue to CNEL 65 dB. A barrier would not reduce noise from aircraft. We understand that visual sound walls are not desired by the City. If used, the barrier should be constructed of a material with a minimum surface density of 3 lbs/ft, continuous from grade to top, and contain no cracks or gaps. * * * 7 STC (Sound Transmission Class) – A single-number rating defined in ASTM E90 that quantifies the airborne sound insulating performance of a partition under laboratory conditions. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved airborne sound insulation. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX A Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Noise This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical aspects of this report. Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are: • The intensity or level of the sound • The frequency spectrum of the sound • The time-varying character of the sound Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds, which we hear in the environment, do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands, which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments. Many rating methods have been devised to permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra. Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range. The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so measured is called the "A-weighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated "dB." In practice, the sound level is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in industry are shown in Figure A-1. Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady background noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle pass-bys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "L10" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "L50" is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix period; it represents the median sound level. The "L90" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise. As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or "Leq" is now widely used. The term "Leq" originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In simple but accurate technical language, the Leq is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of situation. In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions again become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the Ldn (Day/Night Average Sound Level), which represents the 24-hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The Ldn computation divides the 24-hour day into two periods: daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm); and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dB penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels. For highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume is approximately equal to the Ldn. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning • Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over time. Thus, an important factor in assessing a person's subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged. With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report: Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response. 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix A1 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX B SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated 280 380 101 101 101 EL C A MIN O R E A L C A L L A N B L V D SSI O N R D GRAND A V E H IL L S ID E BLVD SNEA T H L N P A R K W Y OAKM O NT DR F LE E TWOOD DR S H A R P P A R K R DA R R O YO D RS A IRPORT BLVDN MCDONNELL RD L O M ITA AVES SPRUCE AVECHESTNUT AVES M C D O N N E L L R D E G R A N D A V E W E S T B OROUGH BLVDHOLLY AVES LINDEN AVEUTAH AV E C R E S T MOOR D R JENEV EI N A V E MADISON A VEHICKEY BLVD CRY S T A L SPRINGS RDE SAN BRUNO AVE W SAN B R U NO A V E W O R A N G E A V EALTA ME S A DR PARK BLVDR O L LING W OO D DR MAGNOL I A A VEORANGE AVEEVERGREEN AVESAN MATEO AVEOLYMPIC DRJUNIPERO SERRA BLVDGLENVIEW DRW H I T M A N WY R I D G E WOOD DREAR L AVEST F R A N CI S BLVD RICH M O N D D RGATEWAY DRCRESTWOOD DR 7TH AVES K Y L I N E BOU L E V ARDAVA LON D R LITTLEFIELD AVEBA Y S H O R E H W YEL CAM INO REALEUCALYPTUS AVETAYLOR BLVDMOSSWOOD LNBA R C E L O N A D R 82 G RAND AVE HICKEY BL V D W SAN B R U N O A V E S N EATH LNS K Y L I N E BO U L E V A R D SAN MATEO AVEHUNTINGTON AVE SNEAT H L N HELE N D R PacificaPacifica San BrunoSan Bruno South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco MillbraeMillbrae Daly CityDaly City BurlingameBurlingame ColmaColma BrisbaneBrisbane San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake 0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles Exhibit IV-6 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport NOISE COMPATIBILITY ZONES --DETAIL NORTH Municipal Boundary Road Regional Park or Recreation Area Freeway Railroad San FranciscoSan FranciscoInternational AirportInternational Airport C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California Noise Contour Data: - Draft Environmental Assessment, Proposed Runway Safety Area Program, San Francisco International Airport. URS Corporation and BridgeNet International, June 2011 County Base Maps: - San Mateo County Planning & Building Department, 2007 Local Plans: - Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan, August 2006 - Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, January 2009 - Burlingame General Map, September 1984 - North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan, February 2007 - Colma Municipal Code Zoning Maps, December 2003 - Daly City General Plan Land Use Map, 1987 - Hillsborough General Plan, March 2005 - Millbrae Land Use Plan, November 1998 - Pacifica General Plan, August 1996 - San Bruno General Plan, December 2008 - San Mateo City Land Use Plan, March 2007 - San Mateo County Zoning Map, 1992 - South San Francisco General Plan, 1998 San FranciscoSan FranciscoBayBay LEGEND CNEL Contour, 2020 Forecast Hospital Place of Worship School Airport Property BART Station CALTRAIN Station Open Space Planned use not mapped Public Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Industrial, Transportation, and Utilities Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development Sources: Planned Land Use Per General Plans: CNE L 7 5 d B Elevation 13.2 FeetElevation 13.2 Feet 10L10R1R 1L 19RCNE L 7 0 d B CNEL 6 5 d B EL CAM CN E L 6 5 d B CN E L 7 0 d B SANITARY SEWER AT&T FIBER OPTICWATER EASEMENTPAR CE L 2 PARCEL 1 MOVE- I N BIKE / LOBB YB2784 SFB3 87 2 S F C111 3 3 S FB1792 SFB2784 SFB3872 SFB2784 SFB3872 SF C111 3 3 S FB2784 SFB 3872 S F LO BBY /MAILGARAGEACCESS B2 784 SF B3 872 SF C1 1133 SFC11133 S F B1792 S F B2 784 SFB3 872 SFB1792 S FB1792 SF B179 2 SF A1 587SF A1 587SF B3 872 SFC1 11 3 3 SFB1 792 SF B1 792 SF B2 784 SFB3 872 SF C1 1133 SF B1 792 SF B1792 SFB1 792 SFC11133 SFB179 2 SF C1 11 3 3 SF B1 792 SFB1792 SF B1792 SF ACCESS A1587S F A1587S F A158 7S F LEAS INGBELOWCAFEBELOW C1 1133 SF C1 1133 SF C1 1133 SF TRASHELEC . B1792 SF B1 792 SF C1 1133 SFB1 792 SF C1 1133 SF GAR ACC BLDG ABLDG BBLDG CCLUB C1 1133 SF C1 1133 SF A1 587SF B1792 SF B1 792 SF B1 792 SF C2 .3 10 9 7 S F C2 .3 10 9 7 S F C2 .2 10 7 4 S F C2 .2 10 7 4 S FC2.11103 SF C2.2 1074 SF FI TN ESS1856 SF B2 784 SF -5'-9 " -5'-9 " -4'-2 " -9'-1 -10'- 6 " -15 ' - 8 " -10'- 6 " -10'-6 " -10 ' - 6 " -12 ' - 1 1 " -14' - 4" -11' - 4 " -11'- 3 " -14' - 4 " 0'-0"0'-0"0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0 " -11'-4 " -11'-0 " 0'-0 " 0'-0"CLUB 135 4 SF9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0"9'-0"X20'-0" RR RRLOBBY 86 1 SF BIK E50STALLFIR E PUM P MOVE-IN B1 792 SFELECT C21102 S F C2 1102 SF STUDY 20'-2"56'-10 "60'-4 " 29'-6"34'-11 "22' - 10 "37'-7 " Inset added by Salter to illustrate project location 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX C 2019 SFO Part 150 Noise Contour Map, with Project Site Indicated 1CNEL 65 dBCNEL 70 dBCNEL 70 dBSANITARY SEWERAT&T FIBER OPTICWATER E A S EME NT PARC E L 2 PARCE L 1 MOVE - I N BIKE/ LOBBY B27 84 S F B3 872 SF C1 1133 SF B179 2 SFB2 784 S F B3 872 SF B27 84 S F B3 872 SF C1 1133 SF B27 84 S F B3 872 SF LOBB Y/ MAIL GARAG E ACCES S B2784 SFB3 872 SF C11133 SFC1 1133 SF B1 792 SF B2784 SFB3 872 SF B1 792 SF B1 792 SF B1 792 SFA1587SFA1587SFB3 872 SF C1 1133 SF B1 792 SF B1792 SFB2784 SFB3 872 SF C11133 SFB1792 SFB1 792 SF B1 792 SF C1 1133 SF B1 792 SF C1 1133 SF B1 792 SFB1792 SFB1792 SFACCES S A1 587SF A1 587SF A1 587SF LEASIN G BELOW CAFE BELOW C11133 SFC11133 SFC11133 SFTRASH ELEC.B1792 SFB1792 SFC11133 SFB1792 SFC11133 SFGAR ACC BLDG A BLDG B BLDG C CLUB C11133 SFC11133 SFA1587SFB1792 SFB1792 SFB1792 SFC2.3 1097 SF C2.3 1097 SF C2.2 1074 SF C2.2 1074 SF C2 .1 1103 SF C2.21074 SFFITNES S 1856 SF B2784 SF-5'-9" -5'-9" -4'-2" -9'-1 -10'-6" -15'-8" -10'-6" -10'-6" -10'-6" -12'-11" -14'-4" -11'-4" -11'-3" -14'-4" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" -11'-4" -11'-0" 0'-0" 0'-0" CLUB 1354 SF 9'- 0 " X20' - 0 " 9'-0 " X20' - 0 " 9'-0 " X20' - 0 " 9'- 0 " X20' - 0 " 9'- 0 " X20' -0 " 9'- 0 " X20' -0 "9'-0 "X20'- 0 " RRRR LOBBY 861 SF BIKE 50 STALL FIRE PUMP MOVE-I NB1792 SFELECT C2 1102 SF C21102 SFSTUDY 20'-2"56'-10 " 60'-4"29'-6"34'-11 " 22'-10" 37'-7"Inset added by Salter to illustrate project location 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX D 1) 2019 2nd Quarter CNEL Overlay (from Google Earth Contours) 2) July 2019 Airport Director’s Report, with Project Site Indicated 3) Monthly Noise Monitor Data from Historical Airport Director’s Reports 8 8 Accessed from https://www.flysfo.com/community/noise-abatement/reports-and-resources/airport-directors-report Images used by SFO are Rights Managed Images and have specic usages dened. Please see photography usage guidelines document for more information and only use approved images on SFO Widen Media Collective. Presented at the October 2, 2019 Airport Community Roundtable Meeting Aircraft Noise Abatement Oce July 2019 Airport Director’s Report Aircraft Noise Levels 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 1110 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 © 2019 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap Site City Noise Events (AVG Day) CNEL (dBA) SEL (dBA) LMax (dBA) CNEL (dBA) 1 San Bruno 3 SSF 4 SSF 5 San Bruno 6 SSF 7 Brisbane 8 Millbrae 9 Millbrae 10 Burlingame 11 Burlingame 12 Foster City 13 Hillsborough 14 SSF 15 SSF 16 SSF 17 SSF 18 Daly City 19 Pacifica 20 Daly City 21 San Francisco 22 San Bruno 23 San Francisco 24 San Francisco 25 San Francisco 26 San Francisco 27 San Francisco 28 Redwood City 29 San Mateo 68789374227 6569805476 61789069151 64768968165 60768765136 6070795022 66698262233 5872835131 5971825339 5870855124 60728364385 597085372 64718461134 60708157144 60718359113 61708259128 60748663118 63728460115 6369834930 6267764112 64718463171 7069825681 6267794721 6263764332 6366774111 596881416 526778396 6172875413 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 1500 2000 2500 Aircraft Significant Exceedances2,474 Increase due to Foster City Site 12. Multiple aircraft arrived after midnight due to thunderstorms in the East Coast Significant Exceedances Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 Note: Site 2 is currently not operational Color image (left) centered on SFO is 2019 2nd Quarter noise contour generated by computer modeling. The contours show various Aircraft CNEL exposure. California’s Title 21 Noise Regulation established acceptable level of aircraft noise at less than 65dBA CNEL. Noise Monitor’s CNEL values (top) are derivedfrom actual measured events and are used to validate the 65dBA CNEL noise footprint. Aircraft and Community monthly CNEL average for each monitor site are provided, along with daily average aircraft counts with the average Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Maximum Level (LMax). The map shows 29 aircraft noise monitoring locations that keep track of noise levels in the communities around the airport. Image centered on SFO airport shows quartlerly aircraft noise levels (dBA) exposure. The green zone marks 65dBA Community Noise Exposure Level (CNEL). The CNEL metric is used to assess and regulate aircraft noise exposure in communities surrounding the airport. The graph below shows aircraft noise events that produced a noise level higher than the maximum allowable decibel value established for a particular monitoring site. 65dBA 70dBA 75dBA 60dBA 55dBA July 2019 55-60 CNEL 60-65 CNEL 65-70 CNEL 70-75 CNEL 75 CNEL Aircraft Community 1 41,836 Monthly Ops 1,350 AVG Daily Ops 38,111 12 Month AVG 1.0% YOY Growth 1 AM3 AM5 AM7 AM9 AM11 AM1 PM3 PM5 PM7 PM9 PM11 PM0 10 20 30 40 50 60 AVG Day Ops July 2019 Average Day (Hourly) Los Angeles Seattle 6%6% Top Destinations 1.1 BDEGA East 1.2 BDEGA West 71% 29% Down the Bay vs Peninsula United Skywest Alaska Delta Southwest American 41% 21% 13% 10% 8% 7% Airlines with the Most Operations 6% Non Airline 80% Narrow Body 15% Wide Body Boeing B737 Airbus A320 Family Embraer E170 Bombardier CRJ2 Boeing B752 Boeing B77W 34% 31% 13% 10% 6% 5% Most Utilized Aircraft Types 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 500 1000 1500 Operations1,155 1,427 Average= 1,350 Daily Aircraft Operations 1. BDEGA 2. DYAMD 3. SERFR 4. OCEANIC 6% 27% 39% 29% Arrival Route A. GAP B. SSTIK C. NIITE D. TRUKN RWY 01 D. TRUKN RWY 28 3% 41% 8% 26% 21% Departure Route Major Arrival and Departure Routes (West Flow) West Flow is depicted in the above image and is a predominate flow at SFO. West Flow 100% Operations July 2019 Arrivals Departures Date 2 Runway Usage and Nighttime Operations Monthly Runway usage is shown for arrivals and departures, futher categorized by all hours and nightttime hours. Graph at the bottom of the page shows hourly nighttime operations for each day. Power Runup locations are depicted on the airport map with airlines nighttime power runup counts shown below. Percent [%] is rounded to the nearest whole number. Arrivals Departures 01 L/R 10 L/R 28 L/R 23% 4,430 0% 1 77% 15,151 100% 19,555 Runway Utilization Departures 10 L/R 01 L/R 28 L/R 52% 350 48% 324 0% 1 Late Night Preferential Runway Use (1 am - 6 am)Arrivals 28L 28R 52%48% Runway Utilization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Operations12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 5 AM Late arrivals on July 8, 9 & 10 due to low cloud ceilings at SFO and thunderstorms in the East Coast. Hourly Nighttime Operations A power runup is a procedure used to test an aircraft engine after maintenance is completed. This is done to ensure safe operating standards prior to returning the aircraft to service. The Aircraft power settingsrange from idle to full power and may vary in duration. Hour 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 58%42% Night (10pm-7am) Alaska Airlines 7 American Airlines 10 Delta Airlines 2 Southwest Airlines 1 United Airlines 8 Nighttime Power Run-Ups 10pm-7am 28 L/R 1 L/R 10 L/R 19 L/R 3 RoundtableAtherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Daly City El Granada Foster City Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Francisco San Mateo South San Francisco Woodside OtherAptos Ben Lomond Berkeley Bonny Doon Boulder Creek Brookdale Capitola Carmel Valley Castro Valley Cupertino Danville East Palo Alto Emerald Hills Felton Fremont Hayward Lafayette Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Montara Moraga Morgan Hill Moss Beach Mountain View Oakland Orinda Palo Alto Penngrove Richmond San Jose Santa Clara Santa Cruz Saratoga Scotts Valley Soquel Stanford Sunnyvale Union City Watsonville Grand Total 11 17 22 37 3 9 12 33 29 4 23 7 18 1 6 13 20 3 6 1 1 5 5 71 67 4 121 1 1 4 1 192 2 26 32 1 2 3 1 121 26 117 1 1 1 13 10 1 1 1 1 2 18 1 9 2 4 5 10 1,160 1,394 195 2,413 4,598 161 565 1,902 7,251 3,133 14 1,610 90 853 974 994 210 1,680 328 1,601 174 381 348 518 10,978 13,134 336 24,294 10 4 3,271 6 45,740 157 7,117 3,756 2 299 281 738 20,549 10,240 18,144 115 46 180 932 4,580 1 2 693 17 67 2,452 6 228 57 1,039 36 477 201,371 1,240 Reporters Annual AVG 186,436 Reports Annual AVG 46 New Reporters Foster City New Reporters Top City 88 Miles Furthest Report 4 Reports per SFO Operation B737A320E75L Top Aircraft Type ASA1947DAL1381UAL2201 Top Flight Number © 2019 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap Noise Reporters Location Map 0 20 40 60 80 AVG Day Counts for dual cha..0 20 40 60 80 SFO Flight Operations89 Hourly Noise Reports (Average Day in a Month) Noise Reports July 2019 Noise Reporters / Noise Reports Noise Reporters Operations 12 AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PMHour of the Day 0 10 20 SFO Noise Reporters21 Night I I Evening I SQL 7% SJC 5%SFO 74% PAO 9% OAK 5% Airport Notes: Address validation Relies on USPS-provided ZIP Code look up table and USPS-specified default city values. of noise reports correlate to a flight origin/destination airport. 100% Source: SFO Intl Airport Noise Monitoring System 4 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix The following noise monitors (Monitors 4, 6, and 14) appear to be closest to the site at 410 Noor. 410 Noor 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctober2017 2018 2019Measured CNEL (dB)Data from Airport Noise Director's Reports (March 2017 to October 2019) Site 4 (SSF)Site 6 (SSF)Site 14 (SSF) CNEL 70 dB 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix The table below summarizes noise levels from October 2019 to March 2017 at the three locations closest to the 410 Noor Site. Noise levels were below 70 dB at all locations at all times, with the exception of July 2017 at Site 4, where noise levels were exactly 70 dB. Note that this location is closer to SFO than the 410 Noor project site. Year Month Aircraft CNEL (dBA) from Directors Reports Site 4 (SSF) Site 6 (SSF) Site 14 (SSF) 2019 October 68 64 59 September 68 65 61 August 69 65 60 July 69 65 61 June 69 65 61 May 68 65 61 April 69 66 61 March 68 66 61 February 67 65 61 January 69 66 61 2018 December 69 65 61 November 68 64 59 October 69 65 60 September 68 65 60 August 68 64 60 July 69 65 60 June 69 66 62 May 69 67 62 April 68 66 61 March 68 66 61 February 67 65 60 January 69 66 61 2017 December 69 65 60 November 68 66 61 October 68 65 60 September 68 66 60 August 69 57 60 July 70 56 61 June 69 47 61 May 69 67 62 April 68 66 62 March 69 67 62 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study 25 February 2020 Appendix APPENDIX E 2017 Noise Study P repared by Papa dimos Group A C O U S T I C A N D V I B R A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S 410 NOOR AVENUE DEVELOPMENT South San Francisco, California Exterior Noise Study DRAFT 25 September 2017 S U B M I T T E D T O : Glen Ceridono Senior Vice President SyRES Properties LLC 150 Pelican Way | San Rafael, CA 94901 Tamsen Plume Partner Holland & Knight LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 2 of 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................... 4 3.1 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.......................................................................................... 4 3.2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN ............................................................................ 4 3.3 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) ............................................................ 6 3.4 FEDERAL GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... 6 3.5 SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SFO) NOISE MAPS .............................................. 6 3.6 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ........................................................ 6 3.7 RECOMMENDED CRITERIA FOR SINGLE-EVENT INTERIOR NOISE ............................................... 7 3.8 NOISE EXPOSURE FOR OUTDOOR USES ............................................................................. 7 4.0 SITE NOISE EXPOSURE................................................................................................ 7 4.1 NOISE SURVEY ........................................................................................................... 7 4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 10 4.3 FUTURE INCREASES ................................................................................................... 10 5.0 EXTERIOR-TO-INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS ................................................................. 11 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 11 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A - FUNDAMENTALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICS ................................... 16 APPENDIX B - NOISE MEASUREMENT CHARTS ................................................................. 23 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 3 of 27 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  This report summarizes the results of an environmental noise study carried out at 410 Noor Avenue in August 2017 to analyze exterior noise exposure for a proposed multi- family residential development and determine requirements for exterior-to-interior noise control to meet relevant regulations and guidelines.  This study is based on results of a site noise survey over several days from August 16 to 23, 2017 to confirm the existing noise exposure for the project site.  The project site is about two miles northwest of the San Francisco International Airport and directly under a departure path for runways 28R & 28L, which is the primary source of noise exposure for the site.  The site is also exposed to vehicular traffic noise that is at least 10 dB lower than aircraft noise on the average. Addressing aircraft noise as described below will also automatically address vehicular traffic noise.  Based on the results of the noise survey, the site noise exposure is currently CNEL 72 dB and attributed to aircraft departures. This is also generally consistent with the SFO ALUC noise exposure maps. For the purposes of this study, a 1 dB increase has been applied to measured data resulting in CNEL 73 dB to account for future conditions in the 10 to 20-year horizon.  Existing and predicted future noise exposure therefore would exceed the CNEL 70 dB threshold of incompatibility for residential developments as established in the South San Francisco General Plan and SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).  To facilitate further review for the project by local jurisdictions, this study outlines minimum exterior-to-interior sound isolation performance to meet California Building Code requirements for exterior noise inside residential spaces (CNEL 45 dB).  To meet CNEL 45 dB inside residential spaces per the California Building Code, the exterior building shell inclusive of walls, glazing and the roof must be designed to provide sound isolation with Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) values ranging from 30 to 35 as described in the Recommendations section of this report.  Such performance requires detailed design of exterior constructions and upgrades above and beyond the typical minimum standard for multifamily residential buildings. In general, this would include exterior wall and roof constructions with additional layers of mass and/or resilient attachment of interior drywall, glass systems with deep increased airspace and use of heavier or laminated glazing, sound-rated exterior door assemblies and properly designed sound attenuating elements in ventilation systems.  The South San Francisco General Plan also recognizes the need for controlling single- event maximum aircraft noise for residential uses, but has no specific noise limits.  This study proposes limits for aircraft single-event maximum noise based on minimizing sleep disturbance (50 dBA and 70 dBC) and provides OITC ratings for the building exterior shell based on site noise exposure to achieve such performance which is above and beyond the minimum building code requirement for average interior 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 4 of 27 noise (CNEL 45 dB). Such performance is difficult to achieve with wood framed structures and generally requires concrete roof construction and heavy or double exterior wall designs in addition to double glazing systems with deep airspace cavities. 2.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results and findings of an environmental noise study carried out for a proposed residential development consisting of 300 apartment units at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, CA. The purpose of this study was to confirm the existing noise exposure for the site and develop design requirements for meeting relevant regulations and guidelines regarding exterior-to-interior noise control for residential uses. Noise analysis is based on a noise survey that included on-site attended noise readings and unattended noise readings over several days from August 16 to 23, 2017 and review of relevant regulatory documents that included the Noise Element of the General Plan for the City of South San Francisco and the SFO Airport Land Use Policies. 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The current development proposal includes approximately 300 apartment units in wood-framed buildings between 4 and 5 floors above below-grade parking. The project location at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, California is about two miles northwest of the SFO airport and directly under a departure path for runways 28R & 28L. Immediately adjacent to the project site are local streets (Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue) and existing commercial/industrial uses. For definitions of acoustical terms and fundamentals of environmental acoustics refer to Appendix A. Relevant codes and regulatory information as it pertains to exterior noise and in particular aircraft noise and recommended criteria to address single-event aircraft noise based on previous experience are provided in the subsections below. 3.1 California Building Code The California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 12, Section 1207 has the following requirement regarding interior noise from exterior sources. This study includes exterior-to-interior sound isolation recommendations for meeting this standard based on measured site noise exposure. 1207.4 Allowable interior noise levels. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), consistent with the noise element of the local general plan. 3.2 South San Francisco General Plan The following excerpt from page 9-4 of the South San Francisco General Plan (downloaded from City of South San Francisco website August 2017) references the 65 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 5 of 27 dB CNEL contour impact boundary previously established by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and state regulations. “ALUC’s 1995 SFO Land Use Plan establishes the 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFO, consistent with noise restrictions in the California Administrative Code, Title 21, Subchapter 6 “Noise Standards.” Local plans, policy actions, or development activities that affect areas within that boundary must receive ALUC approval or have a finding of overriding consideration prior to local permit issuance.” The General Plan has the following land-use compatibility criteria (excerpts from Table 9.2-1) regarding noise exposure for residential development as well as open land uses which may be relevant for outdoor occupied uses on the project: Implementing policy 9-I-10 also limits residential development where aircraft noise exposure exceeds CNEL 70 dB: Furthermore, the General Plan seeks to address pass-by (single-event) noise in addition to the long-term average (CNEL) through the following implementing policy (9-I-1), although no specific limits for single event noise are given. The General Plan also includes a noise contour map for rail and road noise only (Figure 9-2), indicating noise exposure in the absence of aircraft would be CNEL 60 dB or less 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 6 of 27 on the project site and vicinity and the site is therefore fully compatible for residential development with regards to vehicular traffic noise exposure. 3.3 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (November 2012) shows the project site currently within the CNEL 70-75 dB noise contour forecast for 2020 (Exhibit III-1, p. III-9). This means that according to the South San Francisco General Plan requirements described above, the proposed residential project would be technically incompatible under the current ALUCP without proper review and approval by local jurisdictions. 3.4 Federal Guidelines The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies 65 Ldn (similar metric to CNEL) as the threshold of incompatibility for residential uses exposed to aircraft noise (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 150 – Airport Noise Compatibility Planning). This is consistent with other federal guidelines issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Housing and Urban Development. 3.5 San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Noise Maps According to the Noise Exposure Map Report published by SFO in August 2015 as required for compliance with federal regulations (14 CFR Part 150), the project site is entirely within the CNEL 65-70 dB range based on the 2014 noise exposure map (Exhibit 5-1 in SFO report). The 2019 forecast (Exhibit 5-2 in SFO report) indicates the CNEL 70 dB contour line crossing the southwest corner of the project site while most of the project site remains in the CNEL 65-70 dB range. The same report also forecasts a 2% annual compound growth rate in aircraft operations between 2013 and 2033 (Table 2-4). This translates to a 22% increase in aircraft operations over 10 years and 49% increase over 20 years. This information is used later in this study to predict future aircraft noise exposure. 3.6 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment The project site is part of the planning area captured in the November 2009 Draft EIR for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment. Airport noise contours are included in the EIR for a 2001 baseline condition and 2006 projection and indicate that the project site is within the CNEL 65-70 dB range. The EIR does not include more recent noise contours. Proposed Amendment Policies (p. 3.2-18 in the EIR) include requiring an acoustical analysis for any proposed residential development within the CNEL 60 to 69 dB range (Policy 9-I-4) and not allowing such development where noise exposure is CNEL 70 dB or higher (Policy 9-I-11). 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 7 of 27 3.7 Recommended Criteria for Single-Event Interior Noise The California Building Code interior noise requirement (45 dBA CNEL) is based on a 24-hour average and does not address maximum single-event noise associated with individual aircraft. Such events would typically be the prime source of annoyance and sleep disturbance in residential spaces. Given the site proximity to the airport, such noise associated with individual aircraft should be taken into consideration to address speech interference and sleep disturbance. We recommend consideration of the following single-event criteria for limiting maximum aircraft noise inside residential units, in addition to CNEL 45 dB as required by code. Similar criteria have previously been adopted by other local communities1 and the same or more stringent limits are recommended by current industry guidelines2.  A-weighted limit: 50 dBA (single-event maximum)  C-weighed limit: 70 dBC (single-event maximum) The 50 dBA limit above is based on previous field studies showing up to a 5% probability for sleep awakenings from a single aircraft flyover (refer to Appendix A, Figure 2) and the 70 dBC limit is based on minimizing low-frequency aircraft noise intrusion that could potentially induce rattling and vibration of lightweight constructions and fixtures. 3.8 Noise Exposure for Outdoor Uses For outdoor occupied uses such as courtyard seating areas or green roof areas where groups of people would gather for limited periods of time, speech interference would be the primary consideration regarding noise exposure. If continuous noise sources such as steady traffic or mechanical equipment are controlled below 60 dBA, conditions are generally favorable for normal conversation. While noise levels during jet aircraft departures above the site are commonly in the 80 to 90 dBA range and would interfere with most speech communication, this may be acceptable for casual outdoor uses given the short duration of aircraft overflights. There is also no practical way to control aircraft noise outdoors since the aircraft are flying over the site and we are not aware of any previous instances where this has been addressed. 4.0 SITE NOISE EXPOSURE 4.1 Noise Survey The noise survey carried out between August 16 and 23, 2017 included unattended and attended noise readings at the positions shown in Figure 1 below (‘ST’ refers to short-term attended readings and ‘LT’ refers to unattended long-term readings). 1 City of Fremont, California General Plan, Chapter 10, 2011, Page 10-64 2 ASHRAE 2015 Applications Handbook, Chapter 48, Table 1 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 8 of 27 Unattended readings were taken using Larson Davis model 820 sound level meters placed in trees at two positions on the project site. These meters recorded the average noise level (Leq) in hourly intervals and maximum noise levels for single events above 75 dBA. The Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) for each full day of unattended readings were the calculated using the measured hourly average (Leq) levels. The results are provided in Table 1 below and charts that show measured hourly noise levels along with evening and nighttime penalties as required by the CNEL metric are provided in Appendix B (Charts 1a thru 2b). To statistically assess single-event noise, histograms of maximum noise levels during individual loud events were produced and are shown in Charts 3 and 4 in Appendix B. While these events are largely attributed to aircraft departures and generally consistent with our attended observations, certain loud activities near the unattended sound level meters such as dogs barking, etc. could also have influenced measured levels shown on the histograms. However, such events would be rare compared to noise exposure from aircraft. When considering that the two unattended sound level meters should have near agreement in measured noise for aircraft overflights, the loudest 1%, 5% and 10% of aircraft single event noise levels are assessed at 95 dBA, 92 dBA and 91 dBA, respectively. This is generally consistent with attended observations as discussed below. Table 1 – CNEL at Unattended Measurement Positions Date Duration (hours) Measured CNEL (dBA) Position LT-1 Position LT-2 Thursday, Aug. 17, 2017 24 72.5 72.3 Friday, Aug. 18, 2017 24 71.7 71.4 Saturday, Aug. 19, 2017 24 72.5 72.8 Sunday, Aug. 20, 2017 24 70.3 70.6 Monday, Aug. 21, 2017 24 70.8 71.6 Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2017 24 71.2 71.9 5-Day CNEL -- 71.7 71.8 Attended noise readings were taken using a hand-held acoustic analyzer (Bruel &Kjaer model 2250) at various locations across the site to directly observe aircraft and other noise sources and capture representative frequency spectra for subsequent exterior- to-interior noise analysis. Attended noise readings were synchronized with the unattended sound levels meters at Positions LT-1 and LT-2 and the results of these readings are reported in Table 2 below. Refer to Chart 5 for representative frequency spectra of aircraft overflights. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 9 of 27 FIGURE 1: Map of Measurement Positions 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 10 of 27 Table 2 – Short Term Attended Noise Readings Start Time (Duration) Position Measured Noise Level, dBA Average (Leq) Minimum Single-events (maximum) 8/16/17 1:35 pm (15 min) ST-1 68 50 84, 86 (aircraft) LT-1 69 53 80, 84 (aircraft) LT-2 69 51 84, 87 (aircraft) 8/16/17 2:20 pm (15 min) ST-2 70 50 82, 90 (aircraft) LT-1 72 54 84, 91 (aircraft) LT-2 74 52 86, 94 (aircraft) 8/23/17 8:45 am (15 min) ST-3 53 46 89 (loud car) (no aircraft) ST-4 65 50 LT-1 65 51 LT-2 56 48 4.2 Existing Conditions Based on the results of the noise survey described above, site noise exposure is assessed at CNEL 72 dB. This is attributed to aircraft departures from SFO and not local street traffic. According to the San Francisco General Plan, road and rail traffic for the project site is predicted below CNEL 60 dB and this is consistent with our attended noise readings during a period without any aircraft departures. Additionally, both unattended sound level meters measured nearly the same 5-day averaged values (CNEL 71.7 for LT-1 and CNEL 71.8 dB for LT-2 ) despite having very different setback distances from local street traffic (see Figure 1), further indicating that long-term average noise exposure for the site is not influenced by street traffic. 4.3 Future Increases Using information from the Noise Exposure Map Report published by SFO, aircraft operations are predicted to increase by 22% over 10 years and 49% over 20 years. On the assumption that each doubling in aircraft volume results in 3 dB noise increase, this would amount to a 1 dB increase over 10 years and 2 dB over 20 years. However, the trend historically has been towards quieter aircraft designs that partially offsets increased aircraft operations in terms of noise exposure near airports. Therefore, only a 1 dB adjustment has been applied to the existing measured noise levels to account for future conditions, resulting in a future worst-case aircraft noise exposure of CNEL 73 dB for the purposes of this study. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 11 of 27 5.0 EXTERIOR-TO-INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS The following calculation has been used to determine the required sound transmission loss for exterior façades in terms of Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC). Review of measured spectra for typical aircraft overflights has confirmed consistency between OITC ratings and A-weighted exterior-to-interior sound isolation for aircraft spectra. OITC = Exterior Noise Level – Interior Noise Limit – 10log(S/A) + ADJ Where: 10log(S/A) is the room effect S = total room sound absorption (in Sabines) A = exterior wall and roof areas (ft2) Note: For this analysis, residential interiors are assumed to have hard flooring and typical furnishings, resulting in the term 10log(S/A) estimated at 2 dB for rooms with only wall areas exposed to aircraft noise and 5 dB for rooms with both wall and roof areas are exposed to aircraft noise (top floors). ADJ = up to 3 dB to account for sound reflections such as in courtyard areas. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Using the methodology described in the previous section, building exterior constructions would need to meet the following minimum acoustic performance for code compliance (CNEL 45 dB interior):  Roof: OITC 33  Walls: OITC 30 to 35 (refer to Figures 2 thru 4) For meeting the recommended single-event interior noise criteria (50 dBA and 70 dBC) based on all but the loudest 10% of aircraft (up to 90 dBA and 96 dBC), the building exterior constructions would need to provide the following minimum acoustical performance:  Roof: OITC 45  Walls: OITC 42 to 45 (refer to Figures 5 thru 7) 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 12 of 27 FIGURE 2 – Min. OITC Ratings for code compliance (CNEL 45 dB inside) - Floors 1-3 FIGURE 3 – Min. OITC Ratings for code compliance (CNEL 45 dB inside) – Floor 4 FIGURE 4 – Min. OITC Ratings for code compliance (CNEL 45 dB inside) – Floor 5 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 13 of 27 FIGURE 5 – Min. OITC Ratings for single-event noise control (50 dBA max. inside) – Floors 1-3 FIGURE 6 – Min. OITC Ratings for single-event noise control (50 dBA max. inside) – Floor 4 FIGURE 7 – Min. OITC Ratings for single-event noise control (50 dBA max. inside) – Floor 5 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 14 of 27 The OITC values stated above refer to total composite acoustical performance of entire exterior wall and roof systems inclusive of solid areas, glazing, doors and ventilation openings. Appropriate design analysis and/or laboratory testing will be necessary to properly assess the overall performance of various constructions and confirm minimum specified OITC values are met. Some typical constructions for various OITC ratings are listed below as a guideline:  OITC 25: This is generally achievable with standard acoustically sealed exterior constructions, fully gasketed solid core wood or metal insulated exterior doors and standard 1” insulating glass.  OITC 30: For glazing this usually requires laminated glass on at least one side or increasing the total system depth to roughly 1-½” with thicker glazing and/or airspace. Solid wall sections and roof sections should have multiple layers of exterior plywood layers and/or multiple layers of interior drywall to increase mass. Doors to be sound-rated total assemblies with demonstrated laboratory- tested performance.  OITC 35: This generally requires glazing systems with laminated glass and overall depth of 2” or more. Solid wall sections generally require additional layering for min. 10 psf surface weight on the exterior side (i.e. stucco) and may also require multiple drywall layers on the interior. Doors must be sound-rated total assemblies with laboratory-tested performance. Roof potentially achieve this level of performance with adequate mass on the top (min. 10 psf) and multiple layers of interior drywall but require detailed review.  OITC 40: This generally requires laminated-insulated systems of substantial glazing (½” or thicker each side) and deep airspace (4” or more) and specially designed solid wall and roof sections with resilient interior drywall attachment and demonstrated laboratory tested performance.  OITC above 40: This is difficult to achieve with wood framed construction and generally requires double exterior wall systems with inner and outer separate framing in addition to substantial glazing and a concrete roof. Verifying Acoustic Performance of Exterior Wall Systems Since the specified OITC ratings refer to the total performance of overall exterior wall systems, each specific component of the exterior wall system in conjunction with interior gypsum board construction should be reviewed and analyzed in detail to verify the total system performance and determine any necessary upgrades. Such an evaluation should be carried out using sound transmission loss data for each component based on laboratory acoustic tests in accordance with relevant ASTM standards. For prefabricated components, this is typically available from the manufacturer, or in the absence of such test data, previous acoustical tests of similar systems and/or theoretical calculations based on mass and area of the framing system may be provided to estimate sound transmission performance. For built-up components including interior drywall sections, detailed information including 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 15 of 27 material types, dimensions and details of perimeter conditions should be used to estimate sound transmission performance and the resulting OITC ratings. Ventilation Systems Because open windows only provide 10 to 15 dB of exterior to interior attenuation, the project must also include forced-air ventilation systems properly designed to provide fresh air intake and condition interior spaces while maintaining specified OITC ratings. Treatments such as z-ducts or other sound-attenuating air intake ducts can potentially be effective but require detailed design review to ensure that total composite sound isolation performance of exterior constructions is maintained. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS In summary, based on the noise survey described in this report, noise exposure for the project site exceeds local, state and federal land use planning guidelines as they pertain to average aircraft noise exposure (CNEL 70 dB). At a minimum, sound-rated exterior constructions as described in this report are required to comply with California Building Code requirements for interior noise due to exterior sources (CNEL 45 dB). Also relevant and identified in the South San Francisco General Plan without specific limits, is maximum aircraft noise inside residences from single events. This is important for minimizing the potential for sleep interference and other effects on indoor residential activities. Based on limits proposed in this assessment upgraded building constructions not typically achievable with wood framed construction would be required to provide control of single event aircraft noise; however, this is above and beyond the minimum standards established by the California Building Code for control of average noise. Aircraft noise in outdoor use areas for the development cannot be practically controlled since the aircraft fly overhead. We understand common use areas will be indoors and similar provisions outlined in this report for residential spaces to comply with the Building Code should be considered. I trust you will find this information useful but please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, THE PAPADIMOS GROUP, INC. Roman Wowk Chris Papadimos Senior Associate Principal 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 16 of 27 APPENDIX A FUNDAMENTALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICS 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 17 of 27 Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound is typically due to its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales, which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement, which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common method is the A-weighted sound level, (dBA) which gives greater weight to frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy- equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. Environmental noise fluctuates in intensity over time and sensitivity to noise and the potential for sleep disturbance is the highest during times that ambient levels are the lowest, i.e. evening, night and early morning hours. Therefore, time-weighted, average noise levels have been developed and are used to quantify and describe a noise environment and determine impacts. The two average noise level descriptors most commonly used are L dn (also referred to as DNL) and CNEL. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within 1 dB (Type 1 instrument). Various computer models have been commercially developed and can be used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. One way of anticipating a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is to compare the new noise with the existing noise environment to which the person has become adapted, i.e., the so-called "ambient" noise level. With regards to increases in A-weighted noise levels, knowledge of the following relationships is helpful:  Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of one dBA cannot be perceived. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 18 of 27  Outside of the laboratory, a three dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.  A change in noise level of at least five dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.  A 10 dBA increase is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. TABLE 1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 µPa. Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de- emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. L1, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn (or DNL) The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Background Noise The sound pressure level in a given environment from all sources. For the purposes of outdoor noise measurements it is the residual steady noise level in an environment due to a combination of sources near and far and excluding intermittent noises. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 19 of 27 Sound level meter An instrument that measures sound in dB. Various features are incorporated into such instrument including frequency bands, integration of sound over time and display of average, minimum, and maximum levels. Sound pressure level The ratio, expressed in decibels, of the mean-square sound pressure level to a reference mean-square sound pressure level that by convention has been selected to approximate the threshold of hearing (0.0002 µbar) Octave band The frequency range of one octave of sound frequencies. The upper limit is always twice the frequency of the lower limit. Octave bands are identified by the geometric mean frequency or center between the lower limit and the upper limit. One-third octave band The frequency range of one-third of one octave of sound frequencies. The upper limit is 21/3 (1.26) times the lower limit. One-third octave bands are identified by the geometric mean frequency or center between the lower limit and the upper limit. TABLE 2: Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment At a Given Distance from Noise Source A-Weighted Sound Level in dBA Noise Environments Subjective Impression 140 Civil Defense Siren (100’) 130 Jet Takeoff (200’) 120 Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Diesel Pile Driver (100’) 100 Very Loud 90 Boiler Room Printing Press Plant Freight Cars (50’) Pneumatic Drill (50’) 80 Freeway (100’) Vacuum Cleaner (10’) 70 Garbage Disposal in Kitchen Moderately Loud 60 Data Processing Center Light Traffic (100’) Large Transformer (200’) 50 Department Store 40 Private Business Office Quiet Soft Whisper (5’) 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 20 of 27 Effects of Noise Hearing Loss While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise, but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a noise exposure standard which is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over eight hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter. Speech Interference and Sleep Disturbance The threshold for speech interference indoors is 45 dBA if the noise is steady and 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating, depending on room acoustic conditions. Outdoors a threshold of at least 10 dBA higher may be considered for steady noise where the required distance between a talker and listener is reduced as the noise level increases, as shown in Figure 1 below. FIGURE 1: Outdoor noise effect on distance at which ordinary speech can be understood (Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, FICON, 1992, p. 3-9) 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 21 of 27 Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep and therefore require due consideration in project planning and criterion selection. Figure 2 below shows the relationship between noise level and probability to be awakened, in terms of Sound Exposure Level (SEL). The SEL corresponds to the total energy of an individual noise event which for typical aircraft operations is often 10 dB higher than the maximum noise level of the event. On that basis using the studies shown in Figure 2, if indoor noise levels stay below 50 dBA (i.e. 60 dBA SEL) there is less than 5% likelihood for sleep awakenings. FIGURE 2: Sleep disturbance as a function of indoor noise exposure (Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep, Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise, 1997) Exterior to interior attenuation in buildings is typically in the 15 dBA range with open windows. With standard insulated windows in good condition and closed, the noise attenuation factor is at least 20 dBA for typical transportation noise sources. Noise levels of 55-60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65-70 dBA is typical for primary/major arterials. Noise levels of 75-80 dBA are normal at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. If the outdoor level is kept below 70 dBA then a typical residential structure with windows closed would limit typical transportation noise in the interior to 50 dBA, but this needs to be properly analyzed and validated on a case- by-case basis taking into consideration the specific spectral content of the intruding noise. In addition, some noise sources with high content of low frequency such as commercial jet aircraft, trains and trucks have the potential of inducing vibration into structures and this is an area with limited research but requires proper consideration during project development. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 22 of 27 Annoyance Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. Twenty-four hour noise metrics such as DNL (or CNEL) have been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 55 dBA DNL. At about 60 dBA DNL, approximately 2 percent of the population is found to be highly annoyed. When the DNL increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to over 10 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 1 percent per dBA from 60 to 70 dBA DNL. Between 70 and 80 dBA DNL, each decibel increase results in about 2 percent increase on percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the DNL is 60 dBA, approximately 10 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA DNL adds about 2 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA DNL, each decibel increase results in about a 3 percent increase on population highly annoyed. 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 23 of 27 APPENDIX B NOISE MEASUREMENT CHARTS 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 24 of 27 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMHourly Interval Noise Level (dBA) Hour Starting Chart 1a - Unattended Noise Readings Sound Level Meter at Position LT-1 (Fri thru Sun) 10 dB nighttime penalty 5 dB evening penalty Measured Average (Leq) Daily CNEL Fri 18 Aug Sat 19 Aug Sun 20 Aug 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMHourly Interval Noise Level (dBA) Hour Starting Chart 1b - Unattended Noise Readings Sound Level Meter at Position LT-1 (Mon & Tues) 10 dB nighttime penalty 5 dB evening penalty Measured Average (Leq) Daily CNEL Mon 21 Aug Tues 22 Aug 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 25 of 27 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMHourly Interval Noise Level (dBA) Hour Starting Chart 2a - Unattended Noise Readings Sound Level Meter at Position LT-2 (Fri thru Sun) 10 dB nighttime penalty 5 dB evening penalty Measured Average (Leq) Daily CNEL Fri 18 Aug Sat 19 Aug Sun 20 Aug 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PM12:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PM2:00 PM4:00 PM6:00 PM8:00 PM10:00 PMHourly Interval Noise Level (dBA) Hour Starting Chart 2b - Unattended Noise Readings Sound Level Meter at Position LT-2 (Mon & Tues) 10 dB nighttime penalty 5 dB evening penalty Measured Average (Leq) Daily CNEL Mon 21 Aug Tues 22 Aug 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 26 of 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 75 80 85 90 95 100Number of EventsMaximum A-weighted Sound Level of Event (dBA) Chart 3 - Histogram of Loud Events above 75 dBA Unattended sound level meter at Position LT-1 10% of events exceeded 91 dBA 5% of events exceeded 92 dBA 1% of events exceeded 95 dBA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 75 80 85 90 95 100Number of EventsMaximum A-weighted Sound Level of Event (dBA) Chart 4 - Histogram of Loud Events above 75 dBA Unattended sound level meter at Position LT-2 10% of events exceeded 91 dBA 5% of events exceeded 94 dBA 1% of events exceeded 96 dBA 410 Noor Ave 25 September 2017 Exterior Noise Study Page 27 of 27 NC-70 NC-65 NC-60 NC-55 NC-50 NC-45 NC-40 NC-35 NC-30 NC-25 NC-20 NC-15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000Sound Pressure Level (dB re 20 µPa)Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz) Highest (91 dBA, 98 dBC) Average (84 dBA, 90 dBC) Lowest (77 dBA, 84 dBC) Chart 5: Range of measured aircraft spectra Several aircraft departures Approximate Threshold of Hearing A B Region A: Noticeable vibration of lightweight construction when such levels occur inside buildings. Region B: Possible vibration of lightweight construction when such levels occur inside buildings. 410 Noor CEQA Resolution: Exhibit I Traffic Impact Analysis 410 Noor Avenue Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for: SyRES Properties LLC. December 20, 2018 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 17TD05 Phone: 408.971.6100 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... i 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................................... 24 4. Background Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 33 5. Background Plus Project Conditions ............................................................................................................. 37 6. Cumulative Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 42 7. Other Transportation Issues .......................................................................................................................... 47 8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 56 Appendices Appendix A Traffic Counts Appendix B Level of Service Calculations List of Tables Table ES 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................................................................ v Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ...................................... 7 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay .................................. 8 Table 3 Freeway Check ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service................................................................................................ 22 Table 5 Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis ......................................................................................... 23 Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates ...................................................................................................... 26 Table 7 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................... 31 Table 8 Existing plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis ..................................................................... 32 Table 9 Background Intersection Level of Service ........................................................................................... 35 Table 10 Background Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis .................................................................................. 36 Table 11 Background Plus Project Intersection Level of Service ...................................................................... 39 Table 12 Background plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis .............................................................. 41 Table 13 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................................................... 44 Table 14 Queuing Analysis Summary ................................................................................................................ 49 Table 15 Comparable Parking Studies by Hexagon .......................................................................................... 54 List of Figures Figure 1 Project Location and Study Intersections .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4 Existing Transit Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations .............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 8 Project Volumes .................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 30 Figure 10 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................... 34 Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 40 Figure 12 Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 45 Figure 13 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 46 Figure 14 On-Site Parking Layout ....................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 15 Inbound/Outbound Trips at Project Driveways ................................................................................... 52 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | i Executive Summary This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis conducted for the proposed residential development located at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The proposed project consists of three multi-story buildings, Buildings A, B and C with up to 350 residential units in total. The project site is located on the northwest corner of Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue. The site includes two parcels, one of which houses the vacant Century Theater, while the other is an on- grade parking lot that is currently not being used. Buildings A and B would be located with frontages along Huntington Avenue and Building C would be located with frontage along Noor Avenue. Access to Buildings A and B would be provided by two full access driveways on Huntington Avenue and access to Building C would be provided via one full access driveway on Noor Avenue. This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. The study determined the traffic impacts of the proposed development on eight signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The study also includes analysis of four freeway segments and four freeway ramps where the project is expected to add traffic. Additionally, the study also includes an analysis of vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access and parking. Project Trip Estimates The trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on trip rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012 for Apartments (ITE Land Use 220). Based on the ITE rates, the proposed project would generate 179 gross new AM peak-hour trips and 217 gross new PM peak-hour trips. The project is located less than 0.5 mile of the San Bruno Station which serves Caltrain, BART and SamTrans transit routes. After accounting for the 15% transit reduction, the proposed project would generate a net total of 152 AM peak hour trips and 184 PM peak hour trips. Traffic Operations at Intersections Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. Existing vehicle traffic volumes and pedestrian/bicycle traffic volumes were obtained from counts collected on during the AM peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on Wednesday, May 31st, 2017. Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the peak-hour intersection level of service analysis for the nine study intersections under the 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | ii following conditions: existing (Chapter 2), existing with project (Chapter 3), background (Chapter 4), background with project (Chapter 5), and cumulative (Chapter 6). Under existing conditions, the analysis shows that the intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue currently operates at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour. The project would increase the average delay by approximately 1 second under existing conditions and 2 seconds under background conditions, that may not be noticeable. The South El Camino Real General Plan Amendments, April 2010 identified improvements at the El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue intersection that would require right-of-way acquisition along El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue and relocation of utilities in Caltrans right-of-way that are not economically feasible. Also, these mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed General Plan Amendment, which is to create a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood along El Camino Real that is pedestrian oriented. Section 4.2-G-14 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case with the proposed project, which would provide housing in a development priority area that is within walking distance from the San Bruno BART station, the project would not result in a significant impact. Under cumulative conditions, the results show that the following intersections would operate at unacceptable conditions under both Cumulative No Project and Cumulative with Project Conditions: • El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue [LOS E, AM Peak Hour and LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • El Camino Real and Sneath Lane [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • El Camino Real and I 380 Westbound ramps [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • San Bruno Avenue and El Camino Real [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] Although these intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable conditions under cumulative conditions, the project would not cause a significant impact at any of these intersections. El Camino Real and Noor Avenue - The unsignalized intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue would operate with overall acceptable levels of service based on the average delay during both the AM and PM peak hours under existing, background and cumulative conditions without and with the proposed project. However, the analysis shows that the left-turn movement from southbound El Camino Real onto eastbound Noor Avenue would experience long delays that would result in an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak for this movement under cumulative conditions. The project would add 1 vehicle during the AM peak hour and 5 vehicles during the PM peak hour to the southbound left- turn movement. The project would also add 12 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 45 vehicles during the PM peak hour to the northbound right-turn movement, thus increasing the delay for the southbound left-turn movement. The intersection was evaluated for the CA MUTCD peak-hour Warrant 3, with the southbound left-turn as the minor street approach and northbound El Camino Real as the major street. The minimum volume on the minor street approach with one lane should be at least 100 vehicles to meet the signal warrant. The analysis shows that the intersection would meet the warrant during the AM and PM peak hours under cumulative conditions. Since the cumulative traffic volumes are speculative and based on aggressive annual growth factors, it is recommended that the City of South San Francisco monitor this intersection and evaluate the need for a traffic signal as future development occurs. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | i i i Other Transportation Issues Queuing Analysis The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for left turn movements to which the project would add at least six peak hour trips. The queuing analysis shows that the 95th percentile queue exceeds the available storage for the following left-turn movements under existing, background and cumulative conditions: 1. El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue – Southbound left-turn (AM and PM peak hours) 2. Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue – Westbound left-turn (PM peak hour) 3. El Camino Real and Sneath Lane – Westbound left-turn (PM peak hour) The addition of project traffic to these movements would increase the 95th percentile queue length by a maximum of only 1 vehicle. Therefore, no project sponsored improvements would be necessary. Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation A review of the site plan for the proposed project showed that the driveways into the project would provide adequate access and circulation to the site. Access to the site would be provided via two driveways on Huntington Avenue and one driveway on Noor Avenue. The northern driveway on Huntington Avenue would be 31.5 feet wide, the southern driveway on Huntington Avenue would be 24.5 feet wide, and the Noor Avenue driveway would be 25.2 feet wide. The proposed driveway widths are acceptable. The existing center left-turn lane on Huntington Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Noor Avenue would facilitate left-turn access into the project from northbound Huntington Avenue without blocking the through traffic on northbound Huntington Avenue. The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance. Based on the posted speed limit on Huntington Avenue, a driver must be able to see 200 feet down Huntington Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. All three subterranean parking garages would contain 90-degree parking. The driveway widths and parking aisles should be designed to City’s standards. The City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles is 25 feet where 90-degree parking is provided. The site plan shows dead-end drive aisles within the parking garages. Adequate space should be provided at the end of all dead-end parking aisles adjacent to the last parking stall to enable vehicles to back out of these stalls. On-site Parking The 464 parking spaces proposed on site is fewer than the 644 spaces required by the City Code. However, based on parking studies conducted by Hexagon at existing apartment complexes in San Mateo County, the parking provided on site would be adequate. The project will be required to implement a TDM (Travel Demand Management) Program to encourage residents to use transit and off-set the parking deficit. The site plan does not show any bicycle parking. Adequate long term and short-term bicycle parking as required by the City code should be provided on site. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | iv Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Analysis The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the existing transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities in the study area. Thus, no project sponsored improvements would be necessary. Conclusions and Recommendations The peak-hour intersection level of service analysis shows that the proposed project would cause an increase in average delay under existing plus project and background plus project conditions at the intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue. Based on Section 4.2-G-14 of the South San Francisco General Plan, this is not considered a significant impact because the project would provide housing in a development priority area that is within walking distance of the San Bruno BART station. A review of the site plan for the proposed project showed that the driveways would provide adequate access and circulation to the site. Based on parking studies conducted by Hexagon at existing apartment complexes in San Mateo County, the parking provided on site would be adequate. Recommendations: • It is recommended that the City of South San Francisco monitor the unsignalized intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue and evaluate the need for a traffic signal as future development occurs. • It is recommended that the parking spaces along the dead-end aisles in the garage be assigned to the residents. Dead-end aisles typically are less problematic and would not create any on-site circulation issues as long as the parking spaces are assigned to residents. • It is recommended to provide a loading bay along the project frontage on Huntington Avenue for loading/unloading operations and for access by garbage trucks. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | v Table ES- 1 Intersection Levels of Service Summary Avg Delay Avg Delay Avg Delay Avg Delay Avg Delay Avg Delay (sec/veh)(sec/veh)(sec/veh)(sec/veh)(sec/veh)(sec/veh) AM 41.1 D 41.2 D 42.8 D 42.8 D 65.5 E 65.9 E PM 67.4 E 68.4 E 67.7 E 69.5 E 141.2 F 144.3 F AM 12.2 B 12.5 B 12.3 B 12.6 B 22.9 C 24.1 C PM 19.2 B 19.9 B 19.4 B 20.1 C 49.3 D 53.0 D El Camino Real and Noor Avenue Unsignalized1 AM 0.6 A 0.6 A 0.6 A 0.6 A 0.7 A 0.8 A Westbound Right 9.8 A 9.8 A 9.8 A 9.8 A 9.1 A 9.1 A Southbound Left 11.8 B 11.9 B 11.9 B 12.0 B 16.4 C 16.6 C AM 0.7 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 3.2 A 4.7 A Westbound Right 10.9 B 11.1 B 11.0 B 11.3 B 16.4 C 16.5 C Southbound Left 20.4 C 21.1 C 20.7 C 21.4 C 133.9 F 193.3 F AM 8.1 A 8.5 A 8.1 A 8.5 B 8.2 A 8.6 A PM 8.0 A 8.5 A 8.0 A 8.5 A 9.1 A 10.6 A AM 33.4 C 35.2 C 33.2 C 34.9 C 43.5 D 46.8 D PM 44.8 D 46.4 D 44.6 D 46.5 D 86.8 F 90.4 F AM 23.3 C 23.9 C 23.4 C 23.9 C 25.2 C 25.6 C PM 27.0 C 27.6 C 26.9 C 27.8 C 33.4 C 35.8 C AM 17.7 B 17.4 B 17.7 B 17.3 B 21.3 C 21.0 C PM 32.3 C 33.9 C 32.7 C 34.4 C 98.2 F 102.0 F AM 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 7.5 A 8.4 A 8.6 A PM 15.2 B 15.7 B 15.2 B 15.7 B 18.8 B 19.6 B AM 35.6 D 35.4 D 35.5 D 35.3 D 44.3 D 44.3 D PM 49.1 D 49.2 D 49.3 D 49.4 D 83.5 F 84.4 F Bold indicates substandard level of service. Italics indicates specific movement indicates significant impact. Cumulative LOS Cumulative + Project LOS El Camino Real and I-380 East Ramp Background + Project LOS Signalized El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue BackgroundExisting + Project Existing Intersection Control Peak Hour LOS LOS LOS El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue Signalized Signalized Signalized Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue El Camino Real and Sneath Lane Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane El Camino Real and I-380 West Ramp Signalized Signalized Signalized Signalized 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 1 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis conducted for the proposed residential development located at 410 Noor Avenue in South San Francisco, California (see Figure 1). The proposed project consists of three multi-story buildings, Buildings A, B and C with up to 350 residential units in total. The project site is located on the northwest corner of Noor Avenue and Huntington Avenue. The site includes two parcels, one of which houses the vacant Century Theater, while the other is an on-grade parking lot that is currently not being used. Buildings A and B would be located with frontages along Huntington Avenue and Building C would be located with frontage along Noor Avenue. Access to Buildings A and B would be provided by two full access driveways on Huntington Avenue and access to Building C would be provided via one full access driveway on Noor Avenue. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Since it is estimated that the project would add more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips to a Congestion Management Program (CMP) facility, an analysis in accordance with CMP guidelines is required. The traffic study includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for three signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection located in the City of South San Francisco and five signalized intersections located in the City of San Bruno. The intersection of San Bruno Avenue and El Camino Real, located in the City of San Bruno, is a CMP intersection. The study also includes analysis of four freeway segments and four freeway ramps where the project would add traffic. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access and parking. Study Intersections 1. El Camino Real/Spruce Avenue 2. Huntington Avenue/Spruce Avenue 3. El Camino Real/Noor Avenue (Unsignalized) 4. Huntington Avenue/Noor Avenue 5. El Camino Real/Sneath Lane 6. Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane 7. El Camino Real/I-380 Westbound Ramps 8. El Camino Real/I-380 Eastbound Ramps 9. El Camino Real/San Bruno Avenue (CMP intersection) 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 2 Study Freeway Segments 1. Eastbound I-380 from I-280 to El Camino Real 2. Eastbound I-380 from El Camino real to US 101 3. Westbound I-380 from US 101 to El Camino Real 4. Westbound I-380 from El Camino real to I-280 Study Freeway Ramps I-380 & El Camino Real Interchange 1. I-380 Westbound On-Ramp from Southbound El Camino Real (loop-ramp) 2. I-380 Eastbound On-Ramp from Southbound El Camino Real (diagonal ramp) 3. I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp to El Camino Real (diagonal ramp) 4. I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp to El Camino Real (diagonal ramp) Traffic conditions at the study intersections, study freeway segments, and study freeway ramps were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. For the intersection analysis, the AM peak hour is expected to occur between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a typical weekday. As defined in the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2015, the AM peak hour is expected to occur between 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM and the PM peak hour between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM for freeway segments and freeway ramps. These are the hours during which most traffic congestion occurs on the roadways. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing conditions are represented by existing traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from traffic counts conducted during the AM peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on Wednesday, May 31st, 2017. Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing Plus Project peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project, which is described in detail in Chapter 3. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on the existing roadway network. Scenario 3: Background Conditions. Background traffic conditions are represented by background traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic counts the additional traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the study area. Scenario 4: Background plus Project Conditions. Project traffic conditions are represented by Background plus Project traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. Background plus Project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project, which is described in detail in Chapter 3. Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 5: Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative conditions represent future traffic conditions with the proposed project and the addition of expected growth in the area. Consistent with the methodology used in the traffic study conducted for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Update EIR, an average overall growth rate of 2.5 percent per year was applied to the existing (2017) traffic counts to project volumes for the Cumulative 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 3 (2030) conditions. Trips from the approved projects were added to these volumes to obtain Cumulative No-project volumes. Cumulative plus Project conditions were analyzed by adding the project trips to the 2030 No-Project volumes. 410 Noor Avenue Figure 1 Project Location and Study Intersections Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno = 1/2 Mile Radius around BART Station = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 380 280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 410 Noor Avenue Figure 2 Site Plan 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 6 Approved Plans In 2010, the City of South San Francisco adopted the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (GPA), which modified zoning and design guidelines for properties along portion of El Camino Real to allow for intensified, mixed-use development with a focus on pedestrian, bicycle and transit connectivity. As part of the GPA process, a Traffic Impact Analysis was completed that included an analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the implementation of the GPA on the local transportation network. The proposed project at 410 Noor Avenue is located within the GPA area and is consistent with the land uses approved for the site in the GPA. The project site is designated as El Camino Real Mixed Use in the GPA intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real area. Methodology This section presents the methods used to analyze the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new intersection turning movement counts, field observations, and data provided by the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno. The following data were collected from these sources: • Existing traffic volumes • Existing lane configurations • Existing signal timing and phasing • Approved project trips Analysis Methodologies Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. Signalized Intersections City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno Four signalized intersections are located in the City of South San Francisco and four signalized intersections are located in the City of San Bruno. Both the City of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno maintain a LOS policy for signalized intersections of LOS D or better. Both cities evaluate level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Synchro software developed by Trafficware was used to implement the HCM 2000 level of service methodology. Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 7 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16. Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. 10.0 or lessA B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. 10.1 to 20.0 Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. 20.1 to 35.0C This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. greater than 80.0F The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0D This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. 55.1 to 80.0E California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) The study intersections along El Camino Real are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. According to Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities, but Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible. The Caltrans Guide goes on to say that if an existing State highway facility is operating at worse than the appropriate target LOS, the existing measure of effectiveness (i.e., vehicle delay at intersections) should be maintained. Because El Camino Real (SR 82) is a predominantly signalized, heavily-traveled road, LOS D is considered the appropriate target LOS for intersections along El Camino Real. San Mateo County Association of Governments (C/CAG) The San Mateo City and County Association of Governments is a Joint Powers Authority that plans, funds and delivers transportation programs and projects in San Mateo County. C/CAG has developed LOS standards for roadways and intersections on the designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) network. CMP facilities in the project vicinity are I-380 and El Camino Real (SR 82). The El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue intersection is a CMP intersection and has a LOS standard of E. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 8 Unsignalized Intersections Similar to signalized intersections, the City of South San Francisco evaluates level of service at unsignalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. This methodology determines the LOS based on delay. Similar to signalized intersections, the measure of effectiveness of an unsignalized intersection is measured in average control delay. However, the delay is reported for the worst-case approach of the intersection. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 2. The study intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue is unsignalized. This unsignalized study intersection was also analyzed using Synchro software. Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2. Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.) Traffic Signal Warrant For the unsignalized study intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue, the analysis of level of service was supplemented with a signal warrant check. The assessment of the need for signalization was conducted using the Peak-Hour Warrant 3 described in the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). This analysis provides an indication of whether traffic conditions are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. Freeway Segments Per CMP technical guidelines, a freeway segment LOS analysis is required when a project is expected to add trips greater than one percent of a segment’s capacity. Per the C/CAG Final San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2015 Appendix B, freeways with six or more lanes are assumed to have a capacity of 2,300 vehicles per lane, and four-lane freeways are assumed to have a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane. Given that the number of project trips added to the freeways in the area is estimated to be less than the one percent threshold of freeway capacity, a detailed analysis of freeway segment levels of service was not performed. A simple freeway segment capacity evaluation to substantiate this determination is presented in Table 3. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 9 Table 3 Freeway Check Peak # of Project % Freeway Segment Dir Hour Lanes Capacity LOS Trips 2 Capacity Impact EB AM 4 9,200 F 9 0.10%NO PM 4 9,200 F 36 0.39%NO EB AM 4 9,200 F 42 0.46%NO PM 4 9,200 F 22 0.24%NO WB AM 4 9,200 F 37 0.40%NO PM 4 9,200 F 20 0.22%NO WB AM 4 9,200 F 12 0.13%NO PM 4 9,200 F 42 0.46%NO Notes: 2. Project trips are estimated via manual trip assignment. BOLD indicates a substandard level of service. 1. Existing freeway conditions referenced the Level of Service and Performance Measure Monitoring Report - 2015. Existing Conditions 1 Project Conditions I-280 to El Camino Real El Camino Real to I-280 US 101 to El Camino Real El Camino Real to US 101 I-380 I-380 I-380 I-380 Freeway Ramps A freeway ramp analysis was performed in order to verify that the freeway ramps would have sufficient capacity to serve the expected traffic volumes with and without the project in the near-term. Hexagon observed the study freeway ramps in May 2017 and observed that none of the on-ramps were metered during the peak periods. Therefore, this analysis consists of a volume-to-capacity ratio evaluation for all study ramps to determine whether the ramps would have sufficient capacity to serve the additional project traffic. The ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, and considered the free-flow speed and number of lanes on the ramp. Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on intersections are based on City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, CMP, and Caltrans Level of Service standards. For intersections located in South San Francisco, the City of South San Francisco LOS Policy is the adopted established threshold for CEQA. For intersections located in San Bruno, the City of San Bruno LOS Policy is the adopted established threshold for CEQA. Project impacts also were analyzed according to the County Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology for the CMP study intersection. LOS Standards and Significant Impact Criteria City of South San Francisco The Transportation and Circulation Element of the current City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in 1999, addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City. The following are excerpts from the general plan that apply to traffic operations standards. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 10 Policy 4.2-G-10 – Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. Traffic Operations and Level of Service Standards The following Level of Service (LOS) guidelines are outlined in the City of South San Francisco General Plan: Policy 4.2-G-13 - Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. Policy 4.2-G-14 - Accept LOS E or F after finding that: ▪ There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and ▪ The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. Policy 4.2-G-15 - Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. The project site is located on an arterial street, and is not located within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or BART station. The City follows the significance criteria in the CEQA guidelines. Under the CEQA guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit. City Clarification of (a) According to impact criteria established administratively and used to evaluate traffic impacts of other development projects in the area, the project would result in a significant traffic impact at a signalized or unsignalized intersection if either of the following criteria are met: • An intersection with base traffic volumes operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) deteriorates to an unacceptable operation (LOS E or F) with the addition of project traffic; or • An intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS and the proposed project would add any traffic to that intersection. • Under cumulative conditions, the combination of project traffic and future cumulative traffic would result in the intersection not meeting the City LOS standard and the proposed project traffic increases the average control delay for the intersection by four seconds or more. b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level-of-service standards, and travel demand measures, or other standards established by a county congestion management agency for designated roadways or highways. c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 11 d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). e. Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. City of San Bruno The City of San Bruno utilizes standards of significance for evaluating traffic impacts. These standards indicate a traffic impact would be classified as significant if the introduction of the proposed project would: • Cause peak hour intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or LOS F); or • Exacerbate unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay by four (4) seconds or more at an intersection operating at LOS E or LOS F. San Mateo County Association of Governments (C/CAG) The intersection of El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue is a San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection. The San Mateo County of Governments (C/CAG) has developed LOS standards for roadways on the designated CMP network as published in San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2015 (November 2015). The El Camino Real/San Bruno Avenue intersection has a CMP LOS standard of LOS E. Significant traffic impacts at CMP intersections are defined to occur when the addition of new project traffic causes: • Peak hour intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F); or • Exacerbation of unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay by four (4) or more seconds. Freeway Ramps Neither the City of South San Francisco nor C/CAG has adopted significant impact criteria for freeway ramps nor are there adopted methodologies and impact criteria for the analysis of freeway ramps. Therefore, freeway ramps are analyzed to determine potential necessary improvements and the results presented for informational purposes only. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 12 Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Chapter 3 describes the methods used to estimate project traffic and its impact on the existing transportation system. Chapter 4 describes the background scenario conditions that includes approved projects in the City of San Bruno. Chapter 5 presents background plus project conditions which are used to determine the impacts the project will have on the background conditions. Chapter 6 describes the cumulative conditions, generated from applying growth factors to the traffic volumes and analyzed without and with project traffic. Chapter 7 presents the project impacts on other transportation issues including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, vehicle queuing, and parking. Chapter 8 includes a summary of project impacts, any proposed mitigation measures, and recommended improvements. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 13 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via US-101, I-280, I-380, and SR-82/El Camino Real. US-101 is an eight-lane north/south freeway that extends from San Francisco through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Near South San Francisco, US-101 is mostly ten lanes wide. Access to US-101 is provided via I-380 to the south and Spruce Avenue through Grand Avenue to the north. I-280 is a north/south freeway that extends from San Francisco through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. In the vicinity of the project, I-280 is eight lanes wide. Regional access to the project site is provided through I-380 and Sneath Lane to the south and Westborough Boulevard to the north. I-380 is a six lane east/west freeway that connects I-280 and US-101. El Camino Real provides access to I-380 via an interchange. SR-82/El Camino Real is a six-lane north/south arterial with a raised center median within the project area. El Camino Real extends northward to San Francisco where it changes designation to Mission Street and San Jose Avenue, and southward through San Jose. El Camino Real provides access to the project site via Spruce Avenue, Noor Avenue and Sneath Lane. Local access to the site is provided via Huntington Avenue, Spruce Avenue, Sneath Lane and Noor Avenue. These roadways are described below. Huntington Avenue is a north/south arterial street that runs from Spruce Avenue to the north and San Antonio Avenue to the south. In the vicinity of the project Huntington Avenue is a four-lane street with a center turning lane. Parking is not allowed along Huntington Avenue near the project. The project proposes two driveways on Huntington Avenue. Spruce Avenue is an east/west arterial street that runs between El Camino Real to the west and School Street to the east. West of El Camino Real Spruce Avenue turns into Hazelwood Drive and to the east it becomes School Street. Near the project Spruce Avenue has two lanes in each direction. Access to the site from Spruce Avenue is provided by its intersection with Huntington Avenue. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 14 Sneath Lane is an east/west arterial that runs from Sneath Lane Trail in San Bruno to Huntington Avenue. In the vicinity of the project Sneath Lane has two lanes in each direction. Access to the project from Sneath Lane is provided via its intersection with Huntington Avenue. Noor Avenue is an east/west roadway that runs from El Camino Real to Huntington Avenue. Noor Avenue borders the southern portion of the project site and provides direct access to the project via a full access driveway on Noor Avenue. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks along all of the surrounding streets. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located at all signalized intersections in the study area. There are also crosswalks at all three corners of the Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue intersection, as well as three of the four sides of the Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue intersection. There is also a cross walk on the east side of the Noor Avenue and El Camino Real intersection. Overall, the existing pedestrian facilities provide adequate connectivity between the site and the surrounding land uses in the area. Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are pathways, separate from roadways that are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. The following bicycle facilities exist in the project study area (see Figure 3). Class I Bikeway (Multi-Use Path) • Centennial Way Trail is a bike path that extends from the South San Francisco BART station to the San Bruno BART station. This path connects to Class III bike routes on Spruce Avenue and Huntington Avenue in the immediate project vicinity. Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) • Sneath Lane has bike lanes between Huntington Avenue and Sea Biscuit Avenue and between El Camino Real and Skyline Boulevard. Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes) • Huntington Avenue is a designated bike route north of the San Bruno BART Station to Spruce Avenue • Spruce Avenue is a designated bike route east of Hazelwood Drive to School Street 410 Noor Avenue Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ECRCentenn ia l Way T ra i l Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 380 280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 San Bruno BART Station = Class II Bike Lanes = Class III Bike Routes = Class I Bike Paths 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 16 Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by SamTrans, BART, and the shuttle operated by SamTrans. The transit services are described below and shown on Figure 4. SamTrans Bus Routes Route ECR travels between the Daly City BART station and the Palo Alto Transit Center. Along the route, it connects with the Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae BART stations, the Millbrae and Redwood City Transit Centers and various Caltrain stations. On weekdays, it operates with approximately 15-minute headways during peak hours and 30-minute headways from 4:00 AM to 2:00 AM. On the weekends, it operates with 15- to 30-minute headways from 5:00 AM to 2:00 AM. The closest bus stop is located near the El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue intersection, about 2,000 feet from the project site. Route 133 travels along Huntington Avenue between the San Bruno BART station and the South San Francisco BART station. On weekdays, it operates with a 30-minute headway between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM. On Saturdays, it operates with a 30-mintue headway but from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. On Sunday, it operates with a one-hour headway from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. The closest bus stop for Route 133 is at the intersection of Noor Avenue and Spruce Avenue, which is 600 feet from the project site. Route 140 connects Daly City to San Francisco International Airport while traveling through South San Francisco and San Bruno. Near the project this route operates along El Camino Real, Sneath Lane and Huntington Avenue. During weekdays, it operates from approximately 6:00 AM to 12:00 midnight with an approximately 30-minute headway in both direction during weekdays. On weekends, it operates from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM with a one-hour headway. The closest bus stop to the project for Route 140 is at the intersection of Sneath Lane and Huntington Avenue, which is about 1,500 feet walking distance from the project site. Route 141 runs from the San Bruno BART station to the area west of I-280. This route provide access to some local high schools and a senior center. Route 141 operates on weekdays only from 6:15 AM to 7:00 PM with a headway of about one hour. Some of the destinations for this route are only serviced during AM and PM peak hours. The closest bus stop for Route 141 is located along the project site frontage on Huntington Avenue. Route 398 connects the San Bruno BART station to the Redwood City Transit Center. It operates along US 101 and provides access to San Francisco International Airport, the Hillsdale Caltrain Station (in San Mateo), Belmont Caltrain Station and San Carlos Caltrain Station. On weekdays, it operates from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM with an hour headway. On weekends, it operates between 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM with an hour headway. The closest bus stop to the project for this route is near the intersection of Sneath Lane and Huntington Avenue, about 1,500 feet from the project. Route 399 is a night only pilot route that operates between the Daly City BART station and San Francisco International Airport. It operates from 1:00 AM to 5:00 AM with an hour headway. Route 399 can be accessed from the bust stop at the intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue. The bus stops near the project site are near the intersections of Sneath Avenue and Huntington Lane (1,500 feet from site), Spruce Avenue and Huntington Avenue (600 feet from the site), and Spurce Avenue and El Camino Real (2,000 feet from site). BART Service Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail service in the Bay Area, connecting to San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco to the north, and cities in the East Bay. The Richmond- 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 17 Daly City/Millbrae Line provides service from 5:00 AM to 9:15 PM on weekdays with typical headways (frequency of service) of 15 minutes during peak and mid-day hours. The Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO Airport-Millbrae Line provides service between 5:15 AM to 1:30 AM on weekdays with typical headways of 15 minutes during peak and mid-day hours and 20 minutes after 8:00 PM. There are bicycle racks and bicycle lockers available at the San Bruno BART Station. This station has monthly reserved, single day reserved and carpool parking. The San Bruno BART station is located less than a mile from the project site. The BART station is served by Caltrain, SamTrans Buses 133, 140, 141, 138, 398, 399 and ECR and the South City shuttle. Project residents could access the BART station via the Centennial Way trail, which provides a safe and easy pedestrian and bicycle connection to the BART station. Caltrain Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located approximately half a mile from the San Bruno Caltrain station, which is located at 1151 Huntington Avenue. The San Bruno Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains. Weekday peak commute headways are between 20 and 60 minutes, with more frequent service for AM northbound and PM southbound trips. Transfers between the Caltrain and BART system can occur at this station as well. 410 Noor Avenue Figure 4 Existing Transit Services 141 141 141 140 140 140 140 133 133 ECR ECR 398 398 Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e = SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART and Caltrain Stations = AC Transit Service = SamTrans Express Routes X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = 1/2 Mile Radius around BART Station 380 280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 San Bruno BART Station 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 19 East of US-101 Area Shuttles Since no SamTrans bus service exists east of US-101 in South San Francisco, project residents who work in the east of US-101 area could use the supplementary shuttle services. The Commute.org, a public agency representing 17 cities and the County of San Mateo, operates seven shuttles to the east of US-101 area from the Caltrain and BART stations. The following shuttles connect the South San Francisco BART station to the east of US-101 area. Oyster Point BART Shuttle The Oyster Point BART shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART station and the Oyster Point area office buildings with seven shuttles leaving from the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the morning (6:40 AM – 9:40 AM) and eight shuttles arriving at the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the evening (3:30 PM – 7:00 PM) Monday through Friday. Utah-Grand BART Shuttle The Utah-Grand BART shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART Station and the Utah-Grand area office buildings with eight shuttles leaving from the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the morning (6:10 AM to 9:40 AM) and seven shuttles arriving at the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the evening (3:30 PM – 6:30 PM) Monday through Friday. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 5. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were obtained from counts collected on May 31st, 2017. The existing peak-hour volumes are shown on Figure 6. Intersection turning-movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A. 410 Noor Avenue Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno= Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 380 280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ave Hazelwood Spruce CaminoRealElDwyAve Spruce HuntingtonAveAve Ave CaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElAve Noor HuntingtonAveHuntingtonAveLn Sneath Ln Sneath Bruno San 1 7 3 5 8 2 4 6 9 I-380 Ramps I-380 Ramps Noor Ave 410 Noor Avenue Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno= Study Intersection = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) = Site Location LEGEND 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ave Hazelwood Spruce CaminoRealElDwyAve Spruce HuntingtonAveAve Ave CaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElAve Noor HuntingtonAveHuntingtonAveLn Sneath Ln Sneath Bruno San 1 7 3 5 8 2 4 6 9 I-380 Ramps I-380 Ramps Noor Ave95(294)617(1611)366(327)461(275)1235(1024)41(95)261(405) 69(141) 226(375) 59(87) 110(95) 66(66)39(147)7(40)173(394)25(16)22(7)17(19)146(318) 509(754) 42(72) 2(6) 839(609) 67(65)1049(2157)49(100)108(90)1481(1495)29(72)35(74)222(458)194(403)15(36)36(81) 89(104)122(287)881(1744)345(341)70(128)1204(1090)161(313)138(439) 75(391) 23(181) 240(378) 395(277) 259(165)13(172)3(32)5(40)139(274)14(28)102(261)5(9) 80(244) 154(316) 139(239) 235(272) 29(34)874(1504)1706(1644)262(351)479(496) 703(1356)1535(2001)1299(1434)198(318) 152(408)245(342)1045(1287)128(123)174(283)926(1231)104(153)178(288) 209(428) 130(231) 224(177) 451(268) 235(250) 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 22 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Intersection levels of service were evaluated against City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno and Caltrans standards. The results of the analysis show that eight of the nine study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level, LOS D or better, during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic (see Table 4). The intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue operates at an unacceptable LOS of E during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. The intersection levels of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Peak Avg Delay Hour (sec/veh) AM 41.1 D PM 67.4 E AM 12.2 B PM 19.2 B El Camino Real and Noor Avenue Unsignalized AM 0.6 A Westbound Right 9.8 A Southbound Left 11.8 B PM 0.7 A Westbound Right 10.9 B Southbound Left 20.4 C AM 8.1 A PM 8.0 A AM 33.4 C PM 44.8 D AM 23.3 C PM 27.0 C AM 17.7 B PM 32.3 C AM 7.4 A PM 15.2 B AM 35.6 D PM 49.1 D Bold indicates substandard level of service. Italics indicates specific movement El Camino Real and I-380 West Ramp Signalized Intersection Control LOS El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue Signalized Existing Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue Signalized Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue Signalized El Camino Real and I-380 East Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue Signalized El Camino Real and Sneath Lane Signalized Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane Signalized 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 23 Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis This analysis consists of a volume-to-capacity ratio evaluation of four freeway ramps at the interchange of I-380/El Camino Real. The ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, which considers both the free-flow speed and the number of lanes on the study ramps. The peak-hour freeway ramp volumes were derived from the collected traffic counts. As shown on Table 5, all freeway ramps currently have sufficient capacity to serve the existing traffic volumes, with volume-to-capacity ratios that are well below 1.0, which means that the existing traffic demand is lower than the ramp capacity during both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5 Existing Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis Interchange Ramp Type Capacity 1 V/C AM 2000 262 0.13 PM 2000 351 0.18 AM 1800 886 0.49 PM 1800 706 0.39 AM 2000 1182 0.59 PM 2000 1552 0.78 AM 4000 350 0.09 PM 4000 726 0.18 Notes: and considered the free-flow speed, the number of lanes on the ramp, and ramp metering. Existing Conditions 1. Ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (pg. 25-4), I-380/ El Camino Real WB On-Ramp from SB El Camino Real Diagonal EB On-Ramp from SB El Camino Real Loop WB Off-Ramp to El Camino Real Diagonal EB Off-Ramp to El Camino Real Diagonal Pk Hr Peak Volume Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated intersection levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service analysis does not accurately reflect existing traffic conditions. Hexagon conducted field observations on a regular weekday during the AM and PM peak hours in May 2017. At the intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue, long queues (12 to 18 cars) were noted for the southbound left-turn movement during the AM peak hour, which could not always clear in one cycle. Generally, during the AM peak hour, southbound El Camino Real served as the peak commute direction, and during the PM peak hour northbound El Camino Real served as the peak commute direction. No significant operational issues were noted at other study intersections, and vehicular queues on all approaches were mostly able to clear in one cycle. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 24 3. Existing Plus Project Conditions This chapter describes traffic conditions with the project. It begins with a description of the transportation system under existing plus project conditions and the method by which project traffic is estimated. A summary of levels of service under existing plus project traffic conditions is presented in this chapter. Existing plus project conditions are represented by existing traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially occur if the project were to be occupied prior to the other approved projects in the area. Transportation Netw ork under Existing Plus Project Conditions It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under existing plus project conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed project was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated based on the location of the project and based on the existing traffic volumes in the study area . In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below. Trip Generation The project proposes a total of up to 350 residential units within three multi-story buildings with three subterranean parking garages on site. To be consistent with assumptions used in the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (GPA, AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, for Apartments (ITE Land Use 220). The trip generation rates for the same type of land uses published in the latest verion of the ITE Trip Generation maunal, 10th Edition, are lower. Therefore, this study represents a conservative analysis. Through empirical research, data has been collected that correlate to common land uses their propensity for producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 25 generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on trip rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012 for Apartments (ITE Land Use 220). The project is located within walking distance of the San Bruno Station which serves Caltrain, BART and SamTrans transit routes. A 15% transit reduction was applied to the trip generation. The 15% transit reduction is consistent with the transit trip reduction in the recently completed El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Update for residential developments proposed in close proximity to an existing BART station. No traffic credit was taken for the existing uses on site because the existing Century Theater is vacant, and the adjacent surface parking lot is fenced off and not in use. For comparison, the multiplex movie theater (20 screens) would generate zero trips during the AM peak hour (7 to 9 AM) and approximately 272 trips during the PM peak hour based on trip rates published for Multiplex Movie Theater (ITE Land Use 445). As shown in Table 4 below, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate a net total of 152 AM peak hour trips and 184 PM peak hour trips on a regular weekday after accounting for the 15% transit reduction. Trip Distribution Peak hour project traffic was distributed to the transportation network based on the existing trip distribution patterns in the project vicinity (see Figure 7). It is expected that most of the trips to/from the proposed project would be from the freeway. Trip Assignment The peak-hour trips associated with the proposed project were added to the transportation network in accordance with the distribution patterns discussed above (see Figure 8). 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 26 Table 6 Project Trip Generation Estimates Daily Daily Pk-Hr Pk-Hr Land Use Trip Rates1 Trips Rate 1 In Out In Out Total Rate 1 In Out In Out Total Proposed Residential Development 350 units 6.65 2,328 0.51 20%80%36 143 179 0.62 65%35%141 76 217 (5)(22)(27)(21)(12)(33) Total 31 121 152 120 64 184 Source: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012. 2 Attributed to the proximity of the project to the San Bruno BART Station Size 1The average trip generation rate(trips per dwelling Units) from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Land Use 220, Apartment) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Splits Trips Splits Trips 15% Transit Reduction 2 410 Noor Avenue Figure 7 Trip Distribution Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 380 280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910%15%10%15%15%10%5%20%35% 30%30% 410 Noor Avenue Figure 8 Project Volumes Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno = Study Intersection = AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX) = Site Location LEGEND 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ave Hazelwood Spruce CaminoRealElDwyAve Spruce HuntingtonAveAve Ave CaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElAve Noor HuntingtonAveHuntingtonAveLn Sneath Ln Sneath Bruno San 1 7 3 5 8 2 4 6 9 I-380 Ramps I-380 Ramps Noor Ave5(3)2(7)1(5)7(4)7(4)13(6)3(12) 2(7)12(45)1(5)5(3)2(5)12(46)87(46)4(3)13(45) 10(5)12(45)12(45)91(48)6(3)91(48)2(6) 12(45)12(48)54(29)37(19)12(42)3(12)12(7)9(36)3(12)12(7) 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 29 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 9). Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis The results of the level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions show that seven of the eight signalized study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic (see Table 7). The intersection of Spruce Avenue and El Camino Real would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour period. The project would increase the average delay at this intersection by only 1 second, which may not be noticeable. The traffic impact study for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendments, April 2010, identified the following improvements at the intersection of El Camino Real/Spruce Avenue under cumulative conditions. El Camino Real/Spruce Avenue – An additional through lane on northbound El Camino Real, two additional through lanes on southbound El Camino Real, an additional through lane and an additional right-turn lane on westbound Spruce Avenue and an exclusive left-turn lane on eastbound Hazelwood Drive. However, implementation of these improvements would require right-of-way acquisition, relocation of utilities in Caltrans right-of-way. Also, these mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed Amendment, which is to create a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood along El Camino Real that is pedestrian oriented and walkable. The LOS standard used in this analysis relates only to vehicular traffic and only reflects the transportation system experience of automobile drivers. The widening of all four approaches and additional receiving lanes to achieve acceptable LOS would benefit automobile drivers but would create overly wide streets and intersections that are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross and could result in narrowing of sidewalks. These improvements would potentially result in worsened conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. Section 4.2- G-14 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. Therefore, the project’s impact at this intersection is not considered a significant impact since the project would provide housing in a development priority area that is within walking distance from the San Bruno BART station. El Camino Real/Noor Avenue - The unsignalized intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue would continue to operate with acceptable levels of service for both the southbound left-turn movement and the westbound right-turn movement with the addition of project traffic during the AM and PM peak hour conditions. The intersection was evaluated for the CA MUTCD peak-hour Warrant 3, and the analysis showed that the intersection would not meet the warrant during either of the peak hours under existing plus project conditions. 410 Noor Avenue Figure 9 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno= Study Intersection = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) = Site Location LEGEND 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ave Hazelwood Spruce CaminoRealElDwyAve Spruce HuntingtonAveAve Ave CaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElAve Noor HuntingtonAveHuntingtonAveLn Sneath Ln Sneath Bruno San 1 7 3 5 8 2 4 6 9 I-380 Ramps I-380 Ramps Noor Ave95(294)622(1614)366(327)463(282)1236(1029)41(95)261(405) 69(141) 233(379) 59(87) 110(95) 66(66)46(151)7(40)186(400)25(16)22(7)17(19)149(330) 509(754) 42(72) 2(6) 839(609) 69(72)1049(2157)61(145)109(95)1481(1495)34(75)37(79)234(504)281(449)19(39)49(126) 99(109)122(287)893(1789)357(386)70(128)1204(1090)161(313)229(487) 75(391) 23(181) 240(378) 395(277) 259(165)13(172)3(32)5(40)145(277)14(28)193(309)5(9) 80(244) 156(322) 151(284) 235(272) 29(34)886(1552)1760(1673)299(370)479(496) 715(1398)1538(2013)1311(1441)207(354) 152(408)245(342)1048(1299)128(123)174(283)938(1238)104(153)178(288) 209(428) 130(231) 224(177) 451(268) 235(250) 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 31 Table 7 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Avg Delay Avg Delay (sec/veh)(sec/veh) AM 41.1 D 41.2 D PM 67.4 E 68.4 E AM 12.2 B 12.5 B PM 19.2 B 19.9 B El Camino Real and Noor Avenue Unsignalized1 AM 0.6 A 0.6 A Westbound Right 9.8 A 9.8 A Southbound Left 11.8 B 11.9 B PM 0.7 A 0.7 A Westbound Right 10.9 B 11.1 B Southbound Left 20.4 C 21.1 C AM 8.1 A 8.5 A PM 8.0 A 8.5 A AM 33.4 C 35.2 C PM 44.8 D 46.4 D AM 23.3 C 23.9 C PM 27.0 C 27.6 C AM 17.7 B 17.4 B PM 32.3 C 33.9 C AM 7.4 A 7.5 A PM 15.2 B 15.7 B AM 35.6 D 35.4 D PM 49.1 D 49.2 D Bold indicates substandard level of service. Italics indicates specific movement indicates significant impact. Peak Hour Existing Existing+Project LOS LOS El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue Signalized Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue Signalized Intersection Control Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue Signalized El Camino Real and Sneath Lane Signalized Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane Signalized El Camino Real and I-380 West Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and I-380 East Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue Signalized Existing plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis As shown in Table 8, with the addition of project trips all freeway ramps would continue to have sufficient capacity to serve the existing plus project traffic volumes, with volume-to-capacity ratios that are well below 1.0, which means that the existing traffic demand is lower than the ramp capacity during both the AM and PM peak hours. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 32 Table 8 Existing plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis Interchange Ramp Type Capacity 1 V/C V/C AM 2000 262 0.13 37 299 0.15 PM 2000 351 0.18 20 371 0.19 AM 1800 886 0.49 42 928 0.52 PM 1800 706 0.39 22 728 0.40 AM 2000 1182 0.59 12 1194 0.60 PM 2000 1552 0.78 42 1594 0.80 AM 4000 350 0.09 9 359 0.09 PM 4000 726 0.18 36 762 0.19 Notes: the number of lanes on the ramp, and ramp metering. Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions 1. Ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (pg. 25-4), and considered the free-flow speed, I-380/ El Camino Real WB On-Ramp from SB El Camino Real Diagonal EB On-Ramp from SB El Camino Real Loop WB Off-Ramp to El Camino Real Diagonal EB Off-Ramp to El Camino Real Diagonal Pk Hr Peak Volume Project Trips Peak Volume 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 33 4. Background Conditions This chapter presents background traffic conditions, which are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from existing traffic counts plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. The background scenario predicts a realistic traffic condition that would occur as approved development gets built and occupied. Based on direction from City staff, the approved Centennial Village project at 180 El Camino Real was included under background conditions. This development is relatively close to the project site and would generate additional traffic at most of the study intersections. Transportation Network The transportation network under background conditions is assumed to be the same as under existing conditions. Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes for study locations under background conditions were obtained by adding traffic generated by the Centennial Village project to the existing traffic volumes. Traffic volumes for the Centennial Village project were obtained from the Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real prepared by W -Trans in Februray 2013. These trips were then added to the existing traffic volumes (see Figure 10). Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Intersection levels of service under background conditions were evaluated against City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, and CMP standards. The results of the analysis (see Table 9) show that eight of the nine study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak period. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. 410 Noor Avenue Figure 10 Background Traffic Volumes Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno= Study Intersection = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) = Site Location LEGEND 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ave Hazelwood Spruce CaminoRealElDwyAve Spruce HuntingtonAveAve Ave CaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElAve Noor HuntingtonAveHuntingtonAveLn Sneath Ln Sneath Bruno San 1 7 3 5 8 2 4 6 9 I-380 Ramps I-380 Ramps Noor Ave95(295)661(1673)366(327)478(319)1261(1090)41(95)286(440) 72(145) 255(417) 59(87) 112(99) 66(67)39(147)7(40)176(398)25(16)22(7)17(19)148(322) 511(758) 42(72) 2(6) 842(613) 67(65)1063(2194)49(100)108(87)1506(1530)29(72)35(74)224(462)197(407)15(36)36(81) 89(104)122(287)895(1781)345(341)70(128)1229(1125)161(313)138(439) 75(391) 23(181) 240(378) 395(277) 259(165)13(172)5(36)5(40)139(274)17(32)102(261)5(9) 80(244) 154(316) 139(239) 235(272) 29(34)886(1535)1727(1674)266(356)479(496) 705(1362)1545(2027)1317(1459)200(323) 152(408)245(342)1055(1313)128(123)174(283)944(1256)104(153)178(288) 209(428) 130(231) 224(177) 451(268) 235(250) 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 35 Table 9 Background Intersection Level of Service Peak Avg Delay Hour (sec/veh) AM 42.8 D PM 67.7 E AM 12.3 B PM 19.4 B El Camino Real and Noor Avenue Unsignalized1 AM 0.6 A Westbound Right 9.8 A Southbound Left 11.9 B PM 0.7 A Westbound Right 11.0 B Southbound Left 20.7 C AM 8.1 A PM 8.0 A AM 33.2 C PM 44.6 D AM 23.4 C PM 26.9 C AM 17.7 B PM 32.7 C AM 7.3 A PM 15.2 B AM 35.5 D PM 49.3 D Bold indicates substandard level of service. Italics indicates specific movement El Camino Real and I-380 West Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and I-380 East Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue Signalized Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue Signalized El Camino Real and Sneath Lane Signalized Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane Signalized El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue Signalized Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue Signalized LOSIntersectionControl Background Background Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis As shown in Table 10, all freeway ramps would have sufficient capacity to serve the background traffic volumes, with volume-to-capacity ratios that are well below 1.0, which means that the background traffic demand would be lower than the ramp capacity during both the AM and PM peak hours. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 36 Table 10 Background Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis Interchange Ramp Type Capacity 1 V/C AM 2000 266 0.13 PM 2000 356 0.18 AM 1800 889 0.49 PM 1800 711 0.40 AM 2000 1184 0.59 PM 2000 1558 0.78 AM 4000 352 0.09 PM 4000 731 0.18 Notes: and considered the free-flow speed, the number of lanes on the ramp, and ramp metering. Background Conditions 1. Ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (pg. 25-4), I-380/ El Camino Real WB On-Ramp from SB El Camino Real Diagonal EB On-Ramp from SB El Camino Real Loop WB Off-Ramp to El Camino Real Diagonal EB Off-Ramp to El Camino Real Diagonal Pk Hr Peak Volume 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 37 5. Background Plus Project Conditions This chapter describes near-term traffic conditions that most likely would occur when the project is complete. Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. This traffic scenario represents a more congested traffic condition than the existing plus project scenario, since it includes traffic generated by approved but not yet built projects in the area. Transportation Network The transportation network under background plus project conditions is assumed to be the same as under existing conditions. Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes under background plus project conditions were obtained by adding the project trips to the background traffic volumes (see Figure 11). Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Intersection levels of service under background plus project conditions were evaluated against City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, and CMP standards. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background plus project conditions show that seven of the eight signalized study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 11). The intersection of Spruce Avenue and El Camino Real would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour period. The project would increase the average delay by approximately 1.8 seconds, which may not be noticeable. The traffic impact study for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendments, April 2010 identified the improvements at the intersection of El Camino Real/Spruce Avenue under cumulative conditions, as described in Chapter 3. However, implementation of these improvements would require right-of-way acquisition, relocation of utilities in Caltrans right-of-way. Also, these mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed Amendment, which is to create a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood along El Camino Real that is pedestrian oriented. The LOS standard used in this analysis relates only to vehicular traffic and only reflects the transportation system experience of automobile drivers. The widening of all four approaches and additional receiving lanes to achieve acceptable LOS would benefit automobile drivers but would create overly wide streets and intersections that are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross and could result in narrowing of sidewalks. These improvements would potentially result in 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 38 worsened conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. Section 4.2-G-14 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. Therefore, the project’s impact at this intersection is not considered a significant impact since the project would provide housing in a development priority area that is within walking distance from the San Bruno BART station. El Camino Real and Noor Avenue - The unsignalized intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue would continue to operate with acceptable levels of service for both the southbound left-turn movement and the westbound right-turn movement with the addition of project traffic during the AM and PM peak hours under background plus project conditions. The intersection was evaluated for the CA MUTCD peak-hour Warrant 3, and the analysis showed that the intersection would not meet the warrant during either of the peak hours under background plus project conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 39 Table 11 Background Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Avg Delay Avg Delay (sec/veh)(sec/veh) AM 42.8 D 42.8 D PM 67.7 E 69.5 E AM 12.3 B 12.6 B PM 19.4 B 20.1 C El Camino Real and Noor Avenue Unsignalized1 AM 0.6 A 0.6 A Westbound Right 9.8 A 9.8 A Southbound Left 11.9 B 12.0 B PM 0.7 A 0.7 A Westbound Right 11.0 B 11.3 B Southbound Left 20.7 C 21.4 C AM 8.1 A 8.5 B PM 8.0 A 8.5 A AM 33.2 C 34.9 C PM 44.6 D 46.5 D AM 23.4 C 23.9 C PM 26.9 C 27.8 C AM 17.7 B 17.3 B PM 32.7 C 34.4 C AM 7.3 A 7.5 A PM 15.2 B 15.7 B AM 35.5 D 35.3 D PM 49.3 D 49.4 D Bold indicates substandard level of service. Italics indicates specific movement indicates significant impact. Background+Project Intersection Control Peak Hour LOS LOS El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue Signalized Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue Signalized Background Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue Signalized El Camino Real and Sneath Lane Signalized Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane Signalized El Camino Real and I-380 West Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and I-380 East Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue Signalized 410 Noor Avenue Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno= Study Intersection = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) = Site Location LEGEND 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ave Hazelwood Spruce CaminoRealElDwyAve Spruce HuntingtonAveAve Ave CaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElAve Noor HuntingtonAveHuntingtonAveLn Sneath Ln Sneath Bruno San 1 7 3 5 8 2 4 6 9 I-380 Ramps I-380 Ramps Noor Ave95(295)666(1676)366(327)480(326)1262(1095)41(95)286(440) 72(145) 262(421) 59(87) 112(99) 66(67)46(151)7(40)189(404)25(16)22(7)17(19)151(334) 511(758) 42(72) 2(6) 842(613) 69(72)1063(2194)61(145)109(95)1506(1530)34(75)37(79)236(508)284(453)19(39)49(126) 99(109)122(287)907(1826)357(386)70(128)1229(1125)161(313)229(487) 75(391) 23(181) 240(378) 395(277) 259(165)13(172)5(36)5(40)145(277)17(32)193(309)5(9) 80(244) 156(322) 151(284) 235(272) 29(34)898(1583)1781(1703)303(375)479(496) 717(1404)1548(2039)1329(1466)209(359) 152(408)245(342)1058(1325)128(123)174(283)956(1263)104(153)178(288) 209(428) 130(231) 224(177) 451(268) 235(250) 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 41 Background plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis As shown in Table 12, with the addition of project trips all freeway ramps would continue to have sufficient capacity to serve the background plus project traffic volumes, with volume-to-capacity ratios that are well below 1.0, which means that the background plus project traffic demand is lower than the ramp capacity during both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 12 Background plus Project Freeway Ramp Capacity Analysis Interchange Ramp Type Capacity 1 V/C V/C AM 2000 266 0.13 37 303 0.15 PM 2000 356 0.18 20 376 0.19 AM 1800 889 0.49 42 931 0.52 PM 1800 711 0.40 22 733 0.41 AM 2000 1184 0.59 12 1196 0.60 PM 2000 1558 0.78 42 1600 0.80 AM 4000 352 0.09 9 361 0.09 PM 4000 731 0.18 36 767 0.19 Notes: the number of lanes on the ramp, and ramp metering. Peak Volume Background Conditions Background plus Project Conditions 1. Ramp capacities were obtained from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (pg. 25-4), and considered the free-flow speed, I-380/ El Camino Real WB On-Ramp from SB El Camino Real Diagonal EB On-Ramp from SB El Camino Real Loop WB Off-Ramp to El Camino Real Diagonal EB Off-Ramp to El Camino Real Diagonal Pk Hr Peak Volume Project Trips 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 42 6. Cumulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions with the proposed project. Cumulative conditions reflect a horizon year of 2030. Roadway Network and Traffic Volumes The intersection lane configurations under cumulative conditions were assumed to be the same as described under existing conditions. Traffic volumes under cumulative base conditions were developed by applying an annual growth rate of 2.5% to the existing volumes and then adding the trips from the approved Centennial Village project to the study locations. The 2.5% annual growth is consistent with the growth factor used to estimate Year 2030 volumes that were analyzed in the recently completed traffic study for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Update, prepared by Kimley-Horn in April 2017. The 2.5% growth rate was derived from the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) travel demand forecasting model. The 2.5% annual growth resluts in an overall traffic increase of 35% at all intersections over a 13-year period. Cumulative No Project volumes are shown on Figure 12. Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes were obtained by adding project trips to the Cumulative No Project volumes. Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 13. Intersection Levels of Service Analysis The results of the level of service analysis under cumulative conditions show that the following intersections would operate at unacceptable conditions under both Cumulative No Project and Cumulative with Project Conditions (see Table 13): • El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue [LOS E, AM Peak Hour and LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • El Camino Real and Sneath Lane [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • El Camino Real and I-380 West Ramps [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] Based on the significance criteria established by the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno, the project would not cause a significant impact at these intersections. The addition of project traffic to these intersections would not increase the average delay by more than 4 seconds. The peak- hour intersection level of service analysis shows that the proposed project would cause an increase in average delay under cumulative plus project conditions at the intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue. Based on Section 4.2-G-14 of the South San Francisco General Plan, this is not 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 43 considered a significant impact because the project would provide housing in a development priority area that is within walking distance of the San Bruno BART station. El Camino Real and Noor Avenue - The unsignalized intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue would continue to operate with overall acceptable levels of service based on the average delay during both the AM and PM peak hours under cumulative conditions without and with the proposed project. However, the analysis shows that the left-turn movement from southbound El Camino Real onto eastbound Noor Avenue would experience long delays that would result in an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak for this movement under cumulative conditions. The project would add 1 vehicle during the AM peak hour and 5 vehicles during the PM peak hour to the southbound left-turn movement. The project would also add 11 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 45 vehicles during the PM peak hour to the northbound right-turn movement, thus increasing the delay for the southbound left- turn movement. The intersection was evaluated for the CA MUTCD peak-hour Warrant 3, with the southbound left-turn as the minor street approach and northbound El Camino Real as the major street. The minimum volume on the minor street approach with one lane should be at least 100 vehicles to meet the signal warrant. The analysis shows that the intersection would meet the warrant during the AM and PM peak hours under cumulative conditions. Since the cumulative traffic volumes are speculative and based on aggressive annual growth factors, it is recommended that the City of South San Francisco monitor this intersection and evaluate the need for a traffic signal as future development occurs. It is noted that the cumulative traffic volumes are based on an aggressive annual growth factor resulting in a traffic increase of more than 35% over a 13-year time period. A comparison of 2008 traffic counts to 2017 traffic counts at the intersection of El Camino Real/Sneath Lane intersection show an increase of only 2.5% during the AM peak hour and a decrease of 8% during the PM peak hour over a 9-year time period. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 44 Table 13 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service Avg Delay Avg Delay (sec/veh)(sec/veh) AM 65.5 E 65.9 E PM 141.2 F 144.3 F AM 22.9 C 24.1 C PM 49.3 D 53.0 D El Camino Real and Noor Avenue Unsignalized1 AM 0.7 A 0.8 A Westbound Right 9.1 A 9.1 A Southbound Left 16.4 C 16.6 C PM 3.2 A 4.7 A Westbound Right 16.4 C 16.5 C Southbound Left 133.9 F 193.3 F AM 8.2 A 8.6 A PM 9.1 A 10.6 A AM 43.5 D 46.8 D PM 86.8 F 90.4 F AM 25.2 C 25.6 C PM 33.4 C 35.8 C AM 21.3 C 21.0 C PM 98.2 F 102.0 F AM 8.4 A 8.6 A PM 18.8 B 19.6 B AM 44.3 D 44.3 D PM 83.5 F 84.4 F Bold indicates substandard level of service. Italics indicates specific movement indicates significant impact. El Camino Real and I-380 West Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and I-380 East Ramp Signalized El Camino Real and San Bruno Avenue Signalized Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue Signalized El Camino Real and Sneath Lane Signalized Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane Signalized El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue Signalized Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue Signalized Intersection Control Peak Hour Cumulative Cumulative+Project LOS LOS 410 Noor Avenue Figure 12 Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno= Study Intersection = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) = Site Location LEGEND 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ave Hazelwood Spruce CaminoRealElDwyAve Spruce HuntingtonAveAve Ave CaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElAve Noor HuntingtonAveHuntingtonAveLn Sneath Ln Sneath Bruno San 1 7 3 5 8 2 4 6 9 I-380 Ramps I-380 Ramps Noor Ave131(406)895(2283)505(451)653(423)1728(1478)57(131)385(593) 98(198) 341(559) 81(120) 154(135) 91(92)54(202)10(55)241(547)34(22)30(10)23(26)203(442) 704(1043) 58(99) 3(8) 1160(844) 92(90)1460(3010)68(138)149(120)2067(2096)40(99)49(102)308(635)270(560)21(50)50(112) 123(143)168(395)1228(2441)476(470)97(176)1685(1538)222(431)190(605) 103(539) 32(250) 331(521) 545(382) 357(227)18(237)6(48)7(55)191(377)22(43)141(360)7(12) 110(336) 212(436) 192(330) 324(375) 40(47)1217(2104)2373(2296)365(489)660(684) 971(1875)2126(2784)1809(2002)275(443) 210(562)337(471)1451(1800)176(170)240(391)1295(1722)143(211)245(397) 288(590) 179(318) 308(244) 622(369) 324(345) 410 Noor Avenue Figure 13 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes Sneat h L n El Cam ino Rea l San Mateo Ave7th AveHunt ing ton AveS A i rpo r t B lvd Cher ry Ave San Br u n o A v e W Utah Av e Shaw RdS Maple AveHazel w o o d Dr S Spruce AveS Linden AvePond erosa R d Cres twood D r Euclid A v e Noor A v e X = City of South San Francisco = City of San Bruno= Study Intersection = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) = Site Location LEGEND 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ave Hazelwood Spruce CaminoRealElDwyAve Spruce HuntingtonAveAve Ave CaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElCaminoRealElAve Noor HuntingtonAveHuntingtonAveLn Sneath Ln Sneath Bruno San 1 7 3 5 8 2 4 6 9 I-380 Ramps I-380 Ramps Noor Ave131(406)900(2286)505(451)655(430)1729(1483)57(131)385(593) 98(198) 348(563) 81(120) 154(135) 91(92)61(206)10(55)254(553)34(22)30(10)23(26)206(454) 704(1043) 58(99) 3(8) 1160(844) 94(97)1460(3010)80(183)150(132)2067(2096)45(102)51(107)320(681)357(606)25(53)63(157) 133(148)168(395)1240(2486)488(515)97(176)1685(1538)222(431)281(653) 103(539) 32(250) 331(521) 545(382) 357(227)18(237)6(48)7(55)197(380)22(43)232(408)7(12) 110(336) 214(442) 204(375) 324(375) 40(47)1229(2152)2427(2325)402(508)660(684) 983(1917)2129(2796)1821(2009)284(479) 210(562)337(471)1454(1812)176(170)240(391)1307(1729)143(211)245(397) 288(590) 179(318) 308(244) 622(369) 324(345) 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 47 7. Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an analysis of: • Vehicle Queuing • Site access and circulation • Parking • Potential impacts to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which is adopted by the City Council, the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgement in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Queuing Analysis The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for left turn movements to which the project would add at least six peak hour trips, which is an average of one trip every ten minutes. Chapter 16 of the HCM 2000 outlines a methodology for calculating the 95th percentile queues at signalized intersections. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups for each movement would only extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the analysis hour. The Synchro software program was used to determine 95th percentile vehicle queues in accordance with the HCM 2000 methodology. 95th percentile vehicle queues were analyzed for the following four study intersections, where the project would add more than six vehicles to the left turn movements: • El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue (southbound left) • Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue (westbound left) • El Camino Real and Sneath Lane (westbound left) • El Camino Real and I-380 EB Off-Ramp (eastbound left) • Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane (eastbound left) • Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue (eastbound left) Table 14 shows that under existing conditions, the 95th percentile queue length exceeds the available storage for the following left-turn movements: El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue – southbound left-turn – The queuing analysis shows that the 95th percentile vehicle queue for the southbound left-turn pocket currently exceed the existing vehicle storage capacity during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and this conditions would continue to 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 48 occur under existing plus project, background, and background plus project conditions. The southbound left-turn pocket provides about 425 feet of vehicle storage for a capacity of up to 17 vehicles. The 95th percentile queue currently is 575 feet during the AM peak hour and 450 feet during the PM peak hour. With the proposed project, the 95th percentile queue during the AM peak hour would increase to 600 feet (increase by 1 vehicle) under existing plus project conditions. Under background conditions, the 95th percentile queue for the southbound left-turn lane would increase to 625 feet during the AM peak hour and 550 feet during the PM peak hour due to approved projects in the area. The project would not increase the queue during the AM peak hour but would increase the 95th percentile vehicle queue during the PM peak hour to 575 feet (increase by 1 vehicle) under background plus project conditions. Since the project would extend the 95th percentile queues by only 1 vehicle, no project sponsored improvements would be necessary. Also, travel on southbound El Camino Real is not significantly affected by the left-turn pocket overflow because there are three southbound through lanes. Huntington and Spruce Avenue – westbound left-turn – The queuing analysis shows that the 95th percentile vehicle queue for the westbound left-turn pocket currently exceed the existing vehicle storage capacity during the PM peak hours of traffic, and this conditions would continue to occur under existing plus project, background, and background plus project conditions. The westbound left-turn pocket provides about 150 feet of vehicle storage for a capacity of up to 6 vehicles. The 95th percentile queue currently is 350 feet during the PM peak hour. Under background conditions, the 95th percentile queue for the westbound left-turn lane during the PM peak hour would increase to 375 feet. The project would increase the 95th percentile vehicle queue during the PM peak hour to 375 feet (increase by 1 vehicle) under existing plus project and to 400 feet (increase by 1 vehicle) under background plus project conditions. Since the project would extend the 95th percentile queues by only 1 vehicle, no project sponsored improvements would be necessary. Also, travel on westbound Spruce Avenue is not significantly affected by the left-turn pocket overflow because there are two westbound through lanes. El Camino Real and Sneath Lane – westbound left-turn – The queuing analysis shows that the 95th percentile vehicle queue for the westbound left-turn pocket currently exceed the existing vehicle storage capacity during the PM peak hours of traffic, and this conditions would continue to occur under existing plus project, background, and background plus project conditions. The westbound left-turn pocket consists of two lanes and provides about 225 feet of vehicle storage per lane for a capacity of up to 9 vehicles per lane. The 95th percentile queue currently is 300 feet during the PM peak hour. Under background conditions, the 95th percentile queue for the westbound left-turn lane during the PM peak hour would not increase from existing conditions. The project would increase the 95th percentile vehicle queue during the PM peak hour to 325 feet (increase by 1 vehicle) under existing plus project and background plus project conditions. Since the project would extend the 95th percentile queues by only 1 vehicle, no project sponsored improvements would be necessary. Also, travel on westbound Sneath Lane is not significantly affected by the left-turn pocket overflow because there are two westbound through lanes. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 49 Table 14 Queuing Analysis Summary Intersection Movement Peak Period Existing Existing plus Project Background Background plus Project AM 575 600 625 625 PM 450 450 550 575 AM 150 150 150 150 PM 350 375 375 400 AM 100 125 100 125 PM 300 325 300 325 AM 125 125 125 125 PM 275 300 275 300 AM 25 25 25 25 PM 50 75 50 75 AM 50 75 50 75 PM 100 125 100 125 Notes:- Eastbound Left 225 Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane Eastbound Left 200 Bold indicates that the queue length exceeds the available storage. 95th Percentile Queue (feet) 425 150 525 Southbound Left Westbound Left Eastbound Left Queuing Analysis based on the 95th percentile queue lengths (in feet) reported in Synchro. Assuming a vehicle length of 25 feet, the 95th percentile queue lengths were rounded to the nearest 25. El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue El Camino Real and I 380 EB Off-Ramp Storage Distance (feet) 225Westbound LeftEl Camino Real and Sneath Lane Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue Vehicular Site Access and On-Site Circulation The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the September 21, 2018 set of site plans prepared by BDE Architects. The site plan is shown on Figure 2 in Chapter 1. The site plan shows a total of 345 units (32 studios, 179 1 bed-room units and 134 two-bedroom units). In addition, renderings of the site that show the parking garages and project driveways in relation to the adjacent roadways are presented in Figure 14. Access to the site would be provided via driveways on Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue. The driveways would provide access to the subterranean parking garages that would be provided within each of the three buildings. Access to Buildings A and B would be provided via full access driveways on Huntington Avenue. Access to Buildings C would be provided via a full access driveway on Noor Avenue. The site plan shows no internal connection between the three parking garages. Driveway Operations The project-generated trips that are estimated to occur at the project driveways are 31 inbound and 121 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 120 inbound and 64 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. These trips would be split between the three driveways, in proportion to the number of parking spaces that would be provided within each of the three subterranean garages (see Figure 15). Vehicle queuing issues are not expected to occur at the project driveways based on the relatively low number of peak hour trips generated by the project at these driveways. The southern driveway on Huntington Avenue that would provide access to Building B would be located 325 feet north of the signal at Huntington Avenue and Noor Avenue. The northern driveway that would provide access to Building A would be located approximately 600 feet north of the southern driveway. Both driveways would service incoming and outgoing traffic and therefore should measure at least 25 feet wide. The existing center left-turn lane on Huntington Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Noor Avenue would facilitate left-turn access into the project from northbound Huntington Avenue without 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 50 blocking the through traffic on northbound Huntington Avenue. The driveway on Noor Avenue that would provide access to Building C would be located approximately 100 feet west of Huntington Avenue. Project inbound vehicles from eastbound Noor Avenue would access the project from the eastbound left-turn lane. Based on the relatively low number of trips that would be generated at the driveway on Noor Avenue, no significant queuing issues are expected to occur. Sight Distance at the Project Driveways In general, the project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance. On-street parking is prohibited along Huntington Avenue and exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as vehicles on the road. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. Sight distance generally should be provided in accordance with Caltrans standards. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For driveways on Huntington Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 30 mph in the study area, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet. Thus, a driver must be able to see 200 feet down Huntington Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. On-Site Circulation On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. All three subterranean parking garages would contain 90-degree parking. The City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles is 25 feet where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of parking spaces. The site plan shows 97 parking stalls within the parking garage of the northern building and 324 parking stalls within the parking garage of the southern building on Huntington Avenue. The site plan shows 47 parking stalls within the parking garage of the building that would have access on Noor Avenue. The site plan shows dead-end drive aisles within all three parking garages. In general, dead-end aisles can be problematic if they contain unassigned parking spaces, since drivers can enter the aisle and upon discovering that there is no available parking, must either back out or conduct three-point maneuvers. Dead-end aisles typically are less problematic and would not create any on-site circulation issues as long as the parking spaces are assigned to residents. Adequate space should be provided at the end of all dead-end parking aisles adjacent to the last parking stall to enable vehicles to back out of these stalls. Truck Access The site plan does not show any designated on-site loading areas. Loading and unloading operations by moving and garbage trucks would likely occur along Huntington Avenue or Noor Avenue along the project frontage. It is recommended to provide a loading bay along the project frontage on Huntington Avenue or Noor Avenue for loading/unloading operations and for access by garbage trucks. NOOR AVEHUNTINGTON AVE SANITARY SEWERAT&T FIBER OPTICWATER EASEMENT20'-0" SETBACK PARCEL 2 PARCEL 1 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6 " X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6 " X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6 " X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18 '8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 ' GARAGEACCESS 152 STALLS 464+/- TOTAL 93 STALLS 8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18 '8'-6 " X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6 " X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18 '8'-6 " X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18 '8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 '8'-6 " X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6 " X 18 ' LEASING1,080 SF BUSINESS CENTER 1,080 SF GARAGEACCESS REC FITNESS 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 8'-6" X 18' DN 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'47 STALLS GARAGEACCESS 8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'8'-6" X 18'2 19 1 19 410 Noor Avenue Figure 14 On-Site Parking Layout 410 Noor Avenue Figure 15 Inbound / Outbound Trips at Project DrivewaysEl Cam ino Rea lSpruce AveHunt ing ton Ave Noor A v e = AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX) = Site Location LEGEND 5(19)1(5)5(2)19(10)19(71)3(13)14(7)71(38)1(6)2(6)11(6 )1(1) 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 53 Parking Analysis Calculation of Vehicular Parking Requirement Parking requirements for the proposed project were evaluated based on the parking requirement provided in Chapter 20.330 On-Site Parking and Loading of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Parking requirements for the proposed project were calculated based on the following parking ratios for multi-family dwelling units: • One-bedroom or 500 to 800 sq ft – 1.5 spaces per unit. • Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100 sq ft - 1.8 spaces per unit. The general requirement for all multi-unit residential parking states that one designated covered space should be provided for each unit, and one additional guest parking space should be provided for every 4 units for projects greater than 10 units. The proposed project consists of 32 studio units larger than 500 sq ft, 179 one-bedroom units and 134 two-bedroom units. Based on the required parking ratios, the required number of parking spaces calculates to 644 spaces (32 studios * 1.5 parking space/unit, 179 one-bed units x 1.5 parking space/unit + 134 two-bed units x 1.8 parking space/unit + 1 guest parking space for 345/4 units). The site plan shows that the project would provide a total of 464 parking spaces on-site within the three parking garages, which is less than the number of parking spaces required by the code. The code also states that for any land use except residential single-unit and duplex development, if any portion of the lot is located within ¼ mile of a BART or Caltrain station, the number of required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the normally required number of spaces with Conditional Use Permit approval. Since the southern portion of the project site is located within ¼ mile of the San Bruno BART station, the project can receive the 25 percent parking reduction. With the 25% reduction, the required number of spaces calculates to 483 spaces (including guest parking). The site plan shows a total of 464 on-site parking spaces which is 19 spaces shy of meeting the required parking with the parking reduction. The proposed on-site parking was compared to parking surveys conducted by Hexagon at other comparable projects and is discussed below. Hexagon Parking Studies In the past, Hexagon has conducted parking studies at existing apartment complexes in San Mateo County to determine the ratios of parked cars to the number of dwelling units and to the number of bedrooms. Parking counts were conducted on three consecutive days in September 2014 at the following four apartment complexes that are large-scale, with on-site amenities and constructed within the last 15 years. • The Plaza at 1 Plaza View Lane, Foster City • Avalon San Bruno at 1099 Admiral Court, San Bruno • Metropolitan Apartments at 338 S. Fremont Street, San Mateo • Archstone San Mateo Apartments at 1101 Park Plaza, San Mateo Peak parking demand for residential developments occurs overnight. Parking occupancy counts were performed after midnight in order to capture peak residential demand (see Table 8). The parking study concluded that, overall, the typical average peak parking demand for apartment complexes comparable to the proposed project was approximately 1.34 parking spaces per unit and approximately 0.80 parking space per bedroom. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 54 Table 15 Comparable Parking Studies by Hexagon Comparing these ratios to the proposed on-site parking, the project would provide parking at a ratio of 1.34 spaces per dwelling unit and 0.97 space per bedroom (including the 32 studio units). Hexagon believes that the proposed on-site parking would be adequate to accommodate the peak parking demand. Given the project’s proximity to the BART station, it is expected that many residents would use public transportation and might not need a car. The project would be required to implement a TDM (Travel Demand Management) Program (such as providing trial transit passes to residents, providing expanded bike parking and repair facilities on-site, on site transit coordinator to educate new residents on TDM programs, etc.) to encourage residents to use transit and off-set the parking deficit. Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces Bicycle parking requirements were calculated based on the following criteria from the zoning ordinance. • Short-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of 10 percent of the number of automobile parking spaces. • A minimum of one long term bicycle parking space shall be provided for every four units for multi-unit residential and group residential projects. The site plan does not show any bicycle parking. With a total of 464 parking spaces provided on site, the proposed project would require 46 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 86 long term parking spaces (1/4 of 345 dwelling units). Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis The project is well situated to take advantage of the existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit services in the immediate vicinity. The project is located within walking distance from the San Bruno BART station and from the bus stops located on El Camino Real. The surrounding streets have sidewalks and there are crosswalk located at all the nearby signalized intersections. The project is located within walking distance of the Centennial Way Trail, which connects to the South San Francisco BART Station. These 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 55 services would allow project residents to access employment, shopping, restaurants and many services without a car. The Tanforan shopping center is located within a quarter mile distance from the project and residents can easily wa lk to these shops and restaurants without needing a car. The South San Francisco High School and Los Cerritos Elementary School are located less than 1 mile from the project and project residents could access these schools via the Centennial Way Trail. The Orange memorial Park is located approximately 1 mile from the project and can be accessed via the Centennial Way Trail. Residents can access places of employment using BART, Caltrain or SamTrans bus routes that operate along El Camino Real. The expected 15% transit mode share would result in 28 transit trips during the peak hour. For this number of riders, it would not be necessary to expand the current transit services. It is anticipated that the existing transit service would be able to accommodate these additional transit trips. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 56 8. Conclusions The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The study included the analysis of traffic conditions at eight signalized and one unsignalized intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Intersection Level of Service Analysis Under existing conditions, the analysis shows that the intersection of El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue currently operates at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour. The project would increase the average delay by approximately 1 second under existing conditions and 2 seconds under background conditions, that may not be noticeable. The South El Camino Real General Plan Amendments, April 2010 identified improvements at the El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue intersection that would require right-of-way acquisition along El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue and relocation of utilities in Caltrans right-of-way that are not economically feasible. Also, these mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed General Plan Amendment, which is to create a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood along El Camino Real that is pedestrian oriented. Section 4.2-G-14 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case with the proposed project, which would provide housing in a development priority area that is within walking distance from the San Bruno BART station, the project would not result in a significant impact. Under cumulative conditions, the results show that the following intersections would operate at unacceptable conditions under both Cumulative No Project and Cumulative with Project Conditions: • El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue [LOS E, AM Peak Hour and LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • El Camino Real and Sneath Lane [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • El Camino Real and I 380 W estbound ramps [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] • San Bruno Avenue and El Camino Real [LOS F, PM Peak Hour] Although these intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable conditions under cumulative conditions, the project would not cause a significant impact at any of these intersections. El Camino Real and Noor Avenue - The unsignalized intersection of El Camino Real and Noor Avenue would operate with overall acceptable levels of service based on the average delay during both 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 57 the AM and PM peak hours under existing, background and cumulative conditions without and with the proposed project. However, the analysis shows that the left-turn movement from southbound El Camino Real onto eastbound Noor Avenue would experience long delays that would result in an unacceptable level of service during the PM peak for this movement under cumulative conditions. The project would add 1 vehicle during the AM peak hour and 5 vehicles during the PM peak hour to the southbound left- turn movement. The project would also add 12 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 45 vehicles during the PM peak hour to the northbound right-turn movement, thus increasing the delay for the southbound left-turn movement. The intersection was evaluated for the CA MUTCD peak-hour Warrant 3, with the southbound left-turn as the minor street approach and northbound El Camino Real as the major street. The minimum volume on the minor street approach with one lane should be at least 100 vehicles to meet the signal warrant. The analysis shows that the intersection would meet the warrant during the AM and PM peak hours under cumulative conditions. Since the cumulative traffic volumes are speculative and based on aggressive annual growth factors, it is recommended that the City of South San Francisco monitor this intersection and evaluate the need for a traffic signal as future development occurs. Other Transportation Issues Queuing Analysis The queuing analysis shows that the 95th percentile queue exceeds the available storage for the following left-turn movements under existing, background and cumulative conditions: • El Camino Real and Spruce Avenue – Southbound left-turn (AM and PM peak hours) • Huntington Avenue and Spruce Avenue – Westbound left-turn (PM peak hour) • El Camino Real and Sneath Lane – Westbound left-turn (PM peak hour) The addition of project traffic to these movements would increase the 95th percentile queue length by a maximum of only 1 vehicle. Therefore, no project sponsored improvements would be necessary. Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation A review of the site plan for the proposed project showed that the driveways into the project would provide adequate access and circulation to the site. The existing center left-turn lane on Huntington Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Noor Avenue would facilitate left-turn access into the project from northbound Huntington Avenue without blocking the through traffic on northbound Huntington Avenue. The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance. Based on the posted speed limit on Huntington Avenue, a driver must be able to see 200 feet down Huntington Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. All three subterranean parking garages would contain 90-degree parking. The driveway widths and parking aisles should be designed to City’s standards. The City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles is 25 feet where 90-degree parking is provided. The site plan shows dead-end drive aisles within the parking garages. Adequate space should be provided at the end of all dead-end parking aisles adjacent to the last parking stall to enable vehicles to back out of these stalls. Recommendation: It is recommended that the parking spaces should be assigned to the residents. Dead-end aisles typically are less problematic and would not create any on-site circulation issues as long as the parking spaces are assigned to residents. 410 Noor Avenue Draft TIA December 20, 2018 P a g e | 58 The site plan does not show any designated loading zones for residential move-in/move-out or garbage pick-up. Loading and unloading operations by moving and garbage trucks would likely occur on Huntington Avenue along the project frontage. Recommendation: It is recommended to provide a loading bay along the project frontage on Huntington Avenue for loading/unloading operations and for access by garbage trucks. On-site Parking The number of parking spaces proposed on site is less than the number of spaces required by the City Code. However, based on parking studies conducted by Hexagon at existing apartment complexes in San Mateo County, the parking provided on site would be adequate. The project will be required to implement a TDM (Travel Demand Management) Program to encourage residents to use transit and off-set the parking deficit. The site plan does not show any bicycle parking. Adequate long term and short-term bicycle parking as required by the City code should be provided on site. Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Analysis The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the existing transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities in the study area. Thus, no project sponsored improvements would be necessary. 410 Noor Avenue Residential Development Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Appendices Appendix A Traffic Counts www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 3 6 5 3 5 11 7 10 50 2611001546 13 16 Peak Hour 1 32 43 30 106 1 0 0 0 0 3 6 15Count Total 8 57 83 56 204 3 4 3 20000018:45 AM 1 9 7 8 25 0 0 3 1 1 2 6 8:30 AM 0 3 8 10 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 1 8:15 AM 0 5 9 9 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 8:00 AM 1 7 13 5 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 7:30 AM 3 6 8 8 25 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 2 4 19 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 0 17 13 6 36 0 0 0 0%6%4%HV%-0%0%2%- 1 0 7:15 AM 0 6 17 6 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 West North South 7:00 AM 3 4 8 20 68 617 366 20 441 1,0986602616922627 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 4%0%1%2%5%3%8%4%4% Peak Hour All 0 59 110 326 52 121 1,103 693 30 0 6 22 2 106 039042415 41 3,469 0 HV 0 0 0 1 0 Count Total 0 91 198 107 0 466 115 748 2,028 68 6,146 0 802 3,383140934942761006513271423 99 302 13 834 3,469 8:45 AM 0 6 29 8 46 7 19 145 66 7 901 3,332 8:30 AM 0 8 26 17 0 64 15 165 95 6 120 289 90691741720 114 259 6 846 3,064 8:15 AM 0 13 29 21 77 7 15 148 91 5 888 2,763 8:00 AM 0 19 20 18 0 53 14 159 114 2 108 248 130752362614 72 269 2 697 0 7:45 AM 0 19 35 10 28 0 9 125 79 2 633 0 7:30 AM 0 8 20 16 0 58 9 122 78 3 74 211 12044132559 67 174 3 545 0 7:15 AM 0 9 18 10 20 6 12 99 77 17:00 AM 0 9 21 7 0 38 11 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 1.9%0.94 TOTAL 3.1%0.96 TH RT WB 5.8%0.87 NB 4.0%0.92 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 0.4%0.92 0 1 0 0000000 0 0 6 114 5N EL CAMINO REAL S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE EL CAMINO REALS SPRUCE AVEEL CAMINO REAL3,469TEV: 0.96PHF:411,0984411,60092220226 69 261 556 9170 366617681,0781,4522766 110 59 235 178 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 030 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 02 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 1000000 3 00000 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 100000000 0 1 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 8:30 AM 1000000 0 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:00 AM 0000 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 20000007:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 106 0 Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 24 15 0 6 22 20203904 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 16 37 3 204 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 1 19 1 7 46 29 0Count Total 0 3 2 3 0 32 6 25 95420260062101 2 7 1 21 106 8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 5 1 0 23 110 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 3 0 3 6 0031100 0 4 1 26 116 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 8 0 36 109 8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 8 3 0 1 5 00111502 4 4 0 25 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 0 29 0 7:30 AM 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 9 6 0 3 2 1000602 1 3 0 19 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 2 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 7 12 4 5 10 14 12 8 72 4162138621 34 11 Peak Hour 5 13 21 21 60 0 0 0 3 1 4 14 13Count Total 12 23 43 38 116 0 4 3 00010115:45 PM 1 1 5 0 7 0 1 1 3 5 3 2 5:30 PM 1 3 5 4 13 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 1 7 7 1 5:15 PM 0 0 6 6 12 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 5:00 PM 1 6 7 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 2 4:30 PM 1 4 10 6 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 3 12 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 3 4 3 9 19 0 0 0 0%1%1%HV%-0%2%5%- 1 2 4:15 PM 2 2 4 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 West North South 4:00 PM 3 3 3 8 193 1,514 309 22 253 1,02466040514137582 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 2%0%3%1%4%1%2%1%1% Peak Hour All 0 87 95 679 173 389 2,769 628 61 0 7 10 4 60 02301137 95 4,661 0 HV 0 0 2 3 0 Count Total 0 176 166 123 0 728 276 443 1,944 181 8,736 0 1,077 4,6413529413482062306844813458 54 278 17 1,220 4,661 5:45 PM 0 23 21 12 89 21 39 439 84 5 1,261 4,445 5:30 PM 0 23 26 11 0 92 42 455 82 7 58 248 22010733972368 60 228 21 1,083 4,227 5:15 PM 0 15 19 27 111 19 35 332 76 5 1,097 4,095 5:00 PM 0 24 28 15 0 101 28 288 67 5 81 270 35010538781951 47 235 26 1,004 0 4:45 PM 0 25 22 13 80 18 49 307 62 9 1,043 0 4:30 PM 0 19 14 20 0 87 31 352 95 6 43 236 1507029732354 52 243 22 951 0 4:15 PM 0 23 15 9 70 16 35 244 68 114:00 PM 0 24 21 16 0 98 31 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 1.5%0.89 TOTAL 1.3%0.92 TH RT WB 1.4%0.96 NB 1.0%0.84 Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM HV %:PHF EB 2.0%0.93 0 0 0 0100110 0 0 21 66 8N EL CAMINO REAL S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE EL CAMINO REALS SPRUCE AVEEL CAMINO REAL4,661TEV: 0.92PHF:951,0242531,3941,99822375 141 405 921 6570 3091,5141932,0981,5778266 95 87 248 429 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 3001011 4 00111 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 1Count Total 0 411000000 1 3 5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 2 5:30 PM 1001000 1 1 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0000 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 00000004:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM RT 60 0 Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 13 7 0 7 10 4082301 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 14 19 5 116 0 Peak Hour 0 0 2 3 5 0 3 22 18 0Count Total 0 0 8 4 0 14 4 7 48140000010000 2 2 0 13 60 5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 1 0 12 68 5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 2 0 3 3 0000000 1 1 0 16 72 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 19 68 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 1 4 4040001 2 4 0 21 0 4:45 PM 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 5 4 0 16 0 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 5 3 0001100 0 2 1 12 0 4:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 1 3 3 2 6 5 4 2 26 179001125 9 11 Peak Hour 24 43 9 2 78 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 5Count Total 47 74 17 2 140 2 1 1 00000008:45 AM 3 11 3 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 8:30 AM 6 7 4 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 3 8:15 AM 6 6 3 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 8:00 AM 7 10 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 7:30 AM 6 6 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 17 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 5 20 1 0 26 0 0 0 0%3%29%HV%-0%2%6%- 0 0 7:15 AM 9 5 1 0 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 West North South 7:00 AM 5 9 3 6 35 7 173 0 25 22670146509424 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 3%-8%0%0%4%4%7%0% Peak Hour All 0 2 839 57 5 80 15 311 0 0 2 0 0 78 03700126 17 1,888 0 HV 0 0 20 4 0 Count Total 0 4 1,498 113 0 274 793 46 43 37 3,276 0 415 1,7870380371045803118 7 7 7 418 1,888 8:45 AM 0 1 205 13 4 2 13 2 42 0 498 1,808 8:30 AM 0 0 173 16 0 36 109 3 49 0 6 9 4040114728 5 4 3 456 1,625 8:15 AM 0 0 245 11 22 0 4 0 37 0 516 1,489 8:00 AM 0 2 189 16 0 31 143 2 45 0 7 2 30391439010 7 5 6 338 0 7:45 AM 0 0 232 24 5 0 12 5 36 0 315 0 7:30 AM 0 0 146 13 0 23 80 1 28 0 6 6 803059408 5 3 5 320 0 7:15 AM 0 0 154 11 3 0 7 2 36 07:00 AM 0 1 154 9 0 30 65 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 3.1%0.76 TOTAL 4.1%0.91 TH RT WB 6.2%0.89 NB 4.1%0.88 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 2.6%0.89 0 1 0 0000000 0 0 5 92 1N HUNTINGTON AVE S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE HUNTINGTON AVES SPRUCE AVEHUNTINGTON AVE1,888TEV: 0.91PHF:1722256451042 509 146 697 1,0370 173735219239467 839 2 908 561 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 020 1 0 0 0000 0 0 0 01 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 THLT 1000000 3 00000 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 100000000 0 1 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 8:30 AM 1000000 0 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:00 AM 0000 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 20000007:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 78 0 Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 2 6 0 2 0 00637001 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 2 0 0 140 0 Peak Hour 0 0 20 4 0 0 3 2 12 0Count Total 0 0 43 4 0 11 63 17 690200000110001 2 0 0 19 78 8:45 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 15 72 8:30 AM 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 0024001 0 0 0 18 72 8:15 AM 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 26 71 8:00 AM 0 0 5 2 0 1 9 0 1 0 0 0 00317000 0 0 0 13 0 7:45 AM 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 7:30 AM 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0005000 0 0 0 17 0 7:15 AM 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 5 0 0 4 5 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 3 5 3 3 2 5 1 2 24 111000028 14 5 Peak Hour 18 13 5 0 36 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5Count Total 37 33 17 1 88 0 0 2 00100105:45 PM 5 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5:30 PM 1 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 5:15 PM 6 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5:00 PM 6 5 3 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 4:30 PM 5 5 3 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 11 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 5 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 0%0%0%HV%-0%3%2%- 1 1 4:15 PM 6 8 3 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 West North South 4:00 PM 3 2 6 3 141 40 394 0 16 7650318754726 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 1%-0%0%0%1%1%1%0% Peak Hour All 0 6 609 114 11 259 70 769 0 0 0 0 0 36 01000005 19 2,447 0 HV 0 0 17 1 0 Count Total 0 17 1,137 112 0 599 1,368 40 25 34 4,555 0 562 2,427993073607214118036 3 1 5 577 2,447 5:45 PM 0 4 162 11 13 2 48 10 108 0 661 2,372 5:30 PM 0 1 141 20 0 71 154 13 104 0 4 2 609820525128 4 0 1 627 2,231 5:15 PM 0 0 160 15 24 1 35 6 96 0 582 2,128 5:00 PM 0 4 156 12 0 75 213 11 86 0 5 4 707418210230 7 5 1 502 0 4:45 PM 0 1 152 18 12 1 27 7 96 0 520 0 4:30 PM 0 0 100 10 0 66 170 9 84 0 8 6 50701418235 2 4 3 524 0 4:15 PM 0 4 140 8 4 2 20 5 102 04:00 PM 0 3 126 18 0 73 162 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 0.0%0.66 TOTAL 1.5%0.93 TH RT WB 1.1%0.87 NB 0.9%0.86 Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM HV %:PHF EB 2.6%0.97 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 8 12 0N HUNTINGTON AVE S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE HUNTINGTON AVES SPRUCE AVEHUNTINGTON AVE2,447TEV: 0.93PHF:1971642118072 754 318 1,144 1,0190 39440141581396665 609 6 680 914 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 1 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 0000000 1 00000 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 110000000 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0000000 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0000 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 00000004:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM RT 36 0 Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 0 5 0 0 0 00310000 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 1 0 0 88 0 Peak Hour 0 0 17 1 0 0 1 0 16 0Count Total 0 0 35 2 0 8 25 10 36000000014000 0 0 0 5 36 5:45 PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 44 5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0010000 0 0 0 14 55 5:15 PM 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 52 5:00 PM 0 0 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0014000 0 0 0 13 0 4:45 PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 18 0 4:30 PM 0 0 5 0 0 1 4 0 3 0 1 0 0035000 0 0 0 11 0 4:15 PM 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start S SPRUCE AVE S SPRUCE AVE HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 8 40011400 1 0 Peak Hr 0 3 42 42 87 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 0Count Total 0 3 86 79 168 0 0 0 00000018:45 AM 0 0 10 15 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 8 6 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 8 10 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 2 11 11 24 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 8 12 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 14 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 0 1 15 15 31 0 0 0 --4%HV%----- 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 18 4 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 West North South 7:00 AM 0 0 8 0 0 1,047 49 0 108 1,4810000290 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 8%-2%3%-3%--10% Peak Hour All 0 0 0 47 0 0 1,898 84 2 0 2 40 0 87 00300384 0 2,714 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 2,700 0 4,938 0 645 2,6762381212835400001200 36 411 0 716 2,714 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 251 9 0 658 2,610 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 17 0 27 349 0000500 20 353 0 657 2,475 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 268 8 0 683 2,262 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 15 0 25 368 0000700 29 349 0 612 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 223 10 0 523 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 10 1 21 287 0000200 21 229 0 444 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 188 3 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start 0 NOOR AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 2.6%0.89 TOTAL 3.2%0.95 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB 10.3%0.81 NB 3.8%0.97 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB -- Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AMN EL CAMINO REAL NOOR AVE NOOR AVEEL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL2,714TEV: 0.95PHF:1,4811081,5891,076029 0 29 157 0 491,0471,0961,481010000 0 0 00 4Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 1 0000001Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 1 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 87 0 Interval Start 0 NOOR AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 38 4 0 2 40 0000300 4 75 0 168 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 77 9 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 818202130000000 0 6 0 14 87 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 18 93 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 1 9 0000000 0 11 0 24 97 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 31 87 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3 0 1 14 0000100 0 12 0 20 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 22 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 4 0000000 0 6 0 14 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start 0 NOOR AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 3 0 4 4 2 2 2 17 100011901 1 0 Peak Hr 0 0 33 12 45 0 0 0 0 1 1 16 0Count Total 0 0 59 36 95 0 0 1 00000015:45 PM 0 0 7 2 9 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 8 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 10 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 8 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 11 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 11 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 0 0 5 10 15 0 0 0 --1%HV%----0% 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 2 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 4:00 PM 0 0 8 0 0 2,157 100 3 76 1,4300110720 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 4%0%0%1%-1%0%-0% Peak Hour All 0 0 0 190 0 0 3,848 225 7 0 0 12 0 45 00000294 0 3,840 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 202 2,824 0 7,298 0 896 3,8405522221828600001600 22 385 0 1,015 3,834 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 570 25 0 1,005 3,699 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 555 17 0 15 401 01001600 21 358 0 924 3,558 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 480 36 1 890 3,458 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 417 27 1 26 392 00002700 37 345 0 880 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 417 47 1 864 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 462 26 1 34 313 00002800 29 344 0 824 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 395 25 14:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start 0 NOOR AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 0.8%0.91 TOTAL 1.2%0.95 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB 0.0%0.66 NB 1.5%0.95 Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM HV %:PHF EB -- Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PMN EL CAMINO REAL NOOR AVE NOOR AVEEL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL3,840TEV: 0.95PHF:1,430761,5092,232372 1 74 177 1 1002,1572,2571,431010000 0 1 00 9Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 1 0000001Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000000 1 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 45 0 Interval Start 0 NOOR AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 29 4 0 0 12 0000000 0 35 0 95 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 4 1Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 45700020000000 0 4 0 12 51 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 13 55 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 3 0000000 0 3 0 11 50 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 15 50 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 9 0000000 0 5 0 16 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 8 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0000000 0 3 0 11 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start 0 NOOR AVE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 3 0 4 4 2 4 1 3 21 115000051 1 8 Peak Hr 4 0 11 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12Count Total 13 0 15 17 45 0 1 0 20000008:45 AM 6 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8:30 AM 1 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 8:00 AM 2 0 2 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 7:30 AM 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 1 0 1 4 6 0 0 0 0%3%5%HV%-0%-4%- 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 West North South 7:00 AM 1 0 2 0 31 222 0 0 0 1948900004 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total ---3%20%4%--- Peak Hour All 0 36 0 0 6 45 399 0 0 0 0 6 3 24 00001100 15 591 0 HV 0 0 0 4 0 Count Total 0 57 0 176 0 0 0 0 358 23 1,064 0 151 587480005460000110 0 55 7 158 591 8:45 AM 0 6 0 26 0 3 8 59 0 0 160 552 8:30 AM 0 5 0 21 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 48 20000010 0 40 3 118 497 8:15 AM 0 14 0 25 0 1 3 46 0 0 155 477 8:00 AM 0 8 0 17 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 51 30000010 0 39 0 119 0 7:45 AM 0 9 0 26 0 1 0 54 0 0 105 0 7:30 AM 0 5 0 20 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 36 0000001 0 35 2 98 0 7:15 AM 0 7 0 22 0 0 3 36 0 07:00 AM 0 3 0 19 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start NOOR AVE 0 HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 4.3%0.84 TOTAL 4.1%0.92 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB -- NB 4.3%0.90 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 3.2%0.80 Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 0 00001 55 0N HUNTINGTON AVE NOOR AVE HUNTINGTON AVEHUNTINGTON AVENOOR AVE 591TEV: 0.92PHF:15194209258022231257287489 36125 46 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0000000Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 24 0 Interval Start NOOR AVE 0 HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 10 0 0 0 6 3000001 0 14 3 45 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 14 0 0Count Total 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 9 27000030000000 0 0 0 5 24 8:45 AM 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 22 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0000001 0 2 2 8 19 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 18 8:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1000000 0 0 0 3 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0000000 0 4 0 7 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start NOOR AVE 0 HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 2 1 6 2 9 0 1 3 24 125000052 3 12 Peak Hr 2 0 6 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9Count Total 4 0 15 12 31 0 0 0 30000005:45 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5:30 PM 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 5:00 PM 0 0 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0%0%1%HV%-2%-0%- 0 1 4:15 PM 1 0 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 West North South 4:00 PM 1 0 5 0 54 458 0 0 0 403104000020 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total ---2%0%1%--- Peak Hour All 0 81 0 0 47 108 894 0 0 0 0 7 0 15 0000060 36 1,156 0 HV 0 2 0 0 0 Count Total 0 145 0 231 0 0 0 0 758 74 2,257 0 266 1,1481180009170000212 0 104 4 292 1,156 5:45 PM 0 13 0 23 0 4 9 127 0 0 306 1,149 5:30 PM 0 19 0 25 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 115 110000620 0 96 6 284 1,116 5:15 PM 0 20 0 20 0 5 11 115 0 0 274 1,109 5:00 PM 0 26 0 25 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 88 150000514 0 88 9 285 0 4:45 PM 0 16 0 34 0 9 15 111 0 0 273 0 4:30 PM 0 18 0 35 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 86 120000614 0 90 10 277 0 4:15 PM 0 15 0 38 0 10 13 105 0 04:00 PM 0 18 0 31 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start NOOR AVE 0 HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 1.6%0.87 TOTAL 1.3%0.94 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB -- NB 1.1%0.95 Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM HV %:PHF EB 1.1%0.91 Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 0 0 00002 55 0N HUNTINGTON AVE NOOR AVE HUNTINGTON AVEHUNTINGTON AVENOOR AVE 1,156TEV: 0.94PHF:3640343953904585453252720104 81185 90 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0000000Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 15 0 Interval Start NOOR AVE 0 HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 6 0 0 0 7 0000000 0 12 0 31 0 Peak Hour 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0Count Total 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 15100010000000 0 0 0 3 15 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 14 5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000000 0 4 0 8 17 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 16 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0000000 0 0 0 2 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0000000 0 1 0 7 0 4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start NOOR AVE 0 HUNTINGTON AVE HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 7 5 7 7 15 4 4 6 55 3022106701 1 39 Peak Hour 19 23 58 36 136 2 3 6 1 0 9 13 2Count Total 43 51 113 68 275 2 0 0 30100138:45 AM 3 6 14 12 35 0 3 1 0 0 3 4 8:30 AM 7 6 13 6 32 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 10 8:15 AM 2 4 12 7 25 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 8:00 AM 5 6 17 10 38 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 4 4 7:30 AM 8 9 12 11 40 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 34 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 5 7 16 13 41 0 1 2 -6%4%HV%-1%1%5%- 0 6 7:15 AM 5 4 18 3 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 West North South 7:00 AM 8 9 11 13 122 881 345 7 63 1,204259013875230 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 5%0%5%3%1%3%9%7%22% Peak Hour All 0 240 395 49 0 211 1,575 617 13 0 3 32 1 136 055073516 161 3,913 0 HV 0 2 4 13 0 Count Total 0 412 684 443 0 262 132 113 2,180 292 6,983 0 852 3,7951926251725441041288029 15 336 53 977 3,913 8:45 AM 0 52 72 51 7 0 22 203 75 2 945 3,790 8:30 AM 0 53 81 67 0 45 18 227 88 2 23 268 27041197025 15 320 41 1,021 3,577 8:15 AM 0 64 99 55 5 0 26 243 93 1 970 3,188 8:00 AM 0 51 107 67 0 30 22 208 89 2 10 280 40022164049 10 319 33 854 0 7:45 AM 0 72 108 70 9 0 20 182 81 0 732 0 7:30 AM 0 46 65 48 0 33 8 168 65 1 14 217 3802676025 9 186 19 632 0 7:15 AM 0 35 81 49 3 0 15 152 64 07:00 AM 0 39 71 36 0 24 14 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start SNEATH LN SNEATH LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 2.5%0.88 TOTAL 3.5%0.96 TH RT WB 9.7%0.84 NB 4.3%0.93 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 2.1%0.89 0 2 0 0001000 2 1 1 220 7N EL CAMINO REAL SNEATH LN SNEATH LN EL CAMINO REALSNEATH LNEL CAMINO REAL3,913TEV: 0.96PHF:1611,204631,4351,151723 75 138 236 8030 3458811221,3481,6010259 395 240 894 358 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 020 1 2 0 020 1 5 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 1 00 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 THLT 6100000 9 00001 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 610000000 3 6 8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 4 8:30 AM 1000000 1 4 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8:00 AM 1000 1 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 10000007:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 136 0 Interval Start SNEATH LN SNEATH LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 35 16 0 3 32 10135507 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 11 54 3 275 0 Peak Hour 0 2 4 13 11 0 10 71 32 0Count Total 0 6 8 29 0 33 7 35 130750390031202 0 6 0 32 136 8:45 AM 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 6 6 0 25 144 8:30 AM 0 0 2 5 0 3 1 8 3 0 2 5 0031001 0 10 0 38 149 8:15 AM 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 11 4 0 41 145 8:00 AM 0 0 1 4 0 5 0 10 3 0 1 11 1023203 2 9 0 40 0 7:45 AM 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 8 4 0 30 0 7:30 AM 0 2 1 5 0 8 0 14 3 0 2 0 1020201 1 4 1 34 0 7:15 AM 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 7 4 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 1 2 5 0 7 1 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start SNEATH LN SNEATH LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 17 21 10 13 13 5 4 12 95 34221171200 0 60 Peak Hour 18 24 42 13 97 1 4 4 2 1 10 29 6Count Total 44 47 75 37 203 3 0 0 60400465:45 PM 4 4 7 3 18 1 2 0 0 0 4 4 5:30 PM 4 7 10 4 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 5:15 PM 4 6 13 3 26 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 3 0 9 5:00 PM 6 7 12 3 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 14 4:30 PM 6 7 13 6 32 2 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 0 3 28 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 3 3 8 8 22 0 2 4 0%1%1%HV%-1%0%9%0% 0 9 4:15 PM 7 6 4 7 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 West North South 4:00 PM 10 7 8 12 286 1,744 341 9 112 1,04616514383911811 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 5%0%3%1%1%2%3%1%4% Peak Hour All 0 378 277 332 1 492 3,132 657 22 0 3 8 2 97 048022416 303 5,673 0 HV 0 2 1 15 0 Count Total 1 721 595 363 1 893 696 225 2,073 584 10,788 0 1,379 5,67344590131228580919447081 25 262 74 1,413 5,622 5:45 PM 0 99 73 41 43 1 77 438 86 4 1,470 5,530 5:30 PM 0 104 73 31 1 101 93 447 83 2 33 284 91012710346070 23 272 80 1,411 5,322 5:15 PM 0 84 61 39 45 0 58 414 82 2 1,328 5,115 5:00 PM 0 91 70 54 0 119 101 327 73 4 33 282 8401118231064 26 260 68 1,321 0 4:45 PM 0 97 89 51 46 0 52 359 84 2 1,262 0 4:30 PM 1 82 77 52 0 119 93 369 79 5 27 240 5901207042045 27 245 70 1,204 0 4:15 PM 0 93 74 39 32 0 45 333 80 24:00 PM 0 71 78 56 0 105 60 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start SNEATH LN SNEATH LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 0.9%0.90 TOTAL 1.7%0.96 TH RT WB 2.4%0.92 NB 1.8%0.96 Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM HV %:PHF EB 2.2%0.95 0 1 0 0100100 4 0 0 220 12N EL CAMINO REAL SNEATH LN SNEATH LN EL CAMINO REALSNEATH LNEL CAMINO REAL5,673TEV: 0.96PHF:3031,0461121,4702,3129181 391 438 1,011 7311 3411,7442862,3721,6501165 277 378 820 980 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 010 0 4 0 030 0 4 0 0000 0 0 0 00 2 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 7001001 10 00020 1 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 1Count Total 0 740000000 2 3 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 5:30 PM 0000000 1 4 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 PM 0000 2 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 10000014:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM RT 97 0 Interval Start SNEATH LN SNEATH LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 24 16 0 3 8 20124802 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 7 26 4 203 0 Peak Hour 0 2 1 15 12 0 7 38 30 0Count Total 0 4 11 29 0 27 8 18 97520021021100 1 2 1 25 101 5:45 PM 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 5 4 0 26 108 5:30 PM 0 0 1 3 0 3 1 8 4 0 1 2 0051001 1 2 0 28 106 5:15 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 6 6 0 22 106 5:00 PM 0 1 0 5 0 2 1 4 3 0 1 7 0020101 1 4 1 32 0 4:45 PM 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 7 4 0 24 0 4:30 PM 0 1 1 4 0 4 1 1 2 0 1 5 1042001 1 2 0 28 0 4:15 PM 0 1 3 3 1 0 1 2 5 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 5 5 0 5 1 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start SNEATH LN SNEATH LN EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 9 3 6 5 3 19 3 8 56 3010031928 12 8 Peak Hour 22 18 4 14 58 1 2 5 1 1 8 28 8Count Total 49 34 9 27 119 1 1 0 30111348:45 AM 7 3 1 5 16 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 8:30 AM 6 7 0 2 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 1 6 0 0 8:15 AM 6 4 0 1 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 8:00 AM 5 4 2 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 7:30 AM 6 4 3 2 15 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 5 19 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 5 3 2 8 18 0 1 2 -8%33%HV%-2%8%3%- 1 3 7:15 AM 6 4 0 1 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 West North South 7:00 AM 8 5 1 0 13 3 5 9 130 142905801540 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 40%0%5%7%7%6%0%15%4% Peak Hour All 0 139 235 283 0 26 6 9 11 0 6 1 7 58 01260112 102 918 0 HV 0 3 18 1 0 Count Total 0 248 425 42 0 22 134 250 30 198 1,684 0 216 9102213253701173503 33 2 39 243 918 8:45 AM 0 27 54 0 41 0 1 2 1 3 233 884 8:30 AM 0 31 56 10 0 0 24 0 0 1 32 3 1902214404 31 1 17 218 824 8:15 AM 0 38 59 10 32 0 5 1 2 1 224 774 8:00 AM 0 35 66 7 0 0 20 0 2 4 34 8 2703153703 35 7 17 209 0 7:45 AM 0 35 54 2 46 0 6 1 0 0 173 0 7:30 AM 0 29 48 6 0 4 10 0 0 1 18 3 20010162500 35 1 22 168 0 7:15 AM 0 29 48 3 23 0 4 0 2 07:00 AM 0 24 40 4 0 2 11 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start SNEATH LN HUNTINGTON AVE BART STATION DWY HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 5.5%0.83 TOTAL 6.3%0.94 TH RT WB 7.5%0.89 NB 19.0%0.66 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 5.5%0.93 0 1 0 0000000 2 0 8 12 19N BART STATION DWY SNEATH LN HUNTINGTON AVE BART STATION DWYSNEATH LNHUNTINGTON AVE918TEV: 0.94PHF:102141302553059154 80 5 239 3700 53132148029 235 139 403 195 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 010 0 2 0 010 0 5 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 THLT 3000000 8 00100 0 0 0 1 Peak Hour 0 1Count Total 0 630100000 2 3 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 8:30 AM 0000000 1 3 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8:00 AM 0000 1 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 10000007:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 58 0 Interval Start SNEATH LN HUNTINGTON AVE BART STATION DWY HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 1 2 0 6 1 70012601 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 11 2 14 119 0 Peak Hour 0 3 18 1 9 0 4 1 4 0Count Total 0 5 39 5 0 0 25 16 56010212002100 1 0 1 15 58 8:45 AM 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 58 8:30 AM 0 0 5 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0003100 1 0 2 14 58 8:15 AM 0 2 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 18 63 8:00 AM 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 3 1 4002100 0 0 2 15 0 7:45 AM 0 1 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 11 0 7:30 AM 0 1 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0004000 2 0 3 19 0 7:15 AM 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 6 2 0 0 4 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start SNEATH LN HUNTINGTON AVE BART STATION DWY HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 16 20 11 18 15 20 8 5 113 6111002231611 24 23 Peak Hour 24 24 2 5 55 2 0 5 0 0 8 40 26Count Total 51 46 3 13 113 3 1 3 00500515:45 PM 2 4 1 1 8 0 1 5 1 0 2 5 5:30 PM 4 7 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 4 4 4 0 5:15 PM 6 4 0 2 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 6 3 4 5:00 PM 8 10 1 2 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 3 5 4:30 PM 6 8 0 2 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 4 3 24 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 6 3 1 1 11 0 1 3 -1%0%HV%0%2%7%3%0% 4 4 4:15 PM 6 2 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 West North South 4:00 PM 13 8 0 0 172 32 40 30 244 2834182443160 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 3%0%1%0%1%3%0%8%2% Peak Hour All 2 237 272 619 0 276 56 73 62 0 3 0 2 55 01950101 261 1,921 0 HV 0 5 18 1 0 Count Total 2 474 485 74 1 16 446 505 48 497 3,634 0 428 1,91226864250025588036 61 6 67 490 1,921 5:45 PM 0 51 56 8 84 0 49 5 7 13 500 1,883 5:30 PM 0 65 68 7 0 3 55 14 21 3 64 9 59125980057 67 8 74 494 1,812 5:15 PM 1 58 63 9 86 0 27 6 4 6 437 1,722 5:00 PM 1 58 66 12 0 1 78 7 8 8 52 5 61025266039 79 5 59 452 0 4:45 PM 0 56 75 6 67 0 20 8 11 6 429 0 4:30 PM 0 68 55 11 0 2 61 8 10 9 61 9 59023872036 57 4 68 404 0 4:15 PM 0 64 52 9 76 0 12 6 6 94:00 PM 0 54 50 12 0 2 48 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start SNEATH LN HUNTINGTON AVE BART STATION DWY HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 0.9%0.91 TOTAL 2.9%0.96 TH RT WB 4.2%0.86 NB 0.8%0.66 Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM HV %:PHF EB 4.4%0.97 0 1 1 0000000 0 0 11 1116 23N BART STATION DWY SNEATH LN HUNTINGTON AVE BART STATION DWYSNEATH LNHUNTINGTON AVE1,921TEV: 0.96PHF:2612824456361530316 244 8 569 5571 403217224470034 272 237 545 679 2 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 011 0 0 0 021 0 5 0 0000 0 0 0 00 1 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 2000000 8 00000 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 750000000 1 2 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 5:30 PM 1000000 0 1 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:00 PM 0000 1 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 00000004:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM RT 55 0 Interval Start SNEATH LN HUNTINGTON AVE BART STATION DWY HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 0 1 0 3 0 20019501 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 6 1 6 113 0 Peak Hour 0 5 18 1 10 0 2 0 1 0Count Total 0 10 40 1 0 1 35 8 52000100002201 0 0 0 11 55 5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 60 5:30 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0004000 1 0 1 21 58 5:15 PM 0 1 4 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 11 61 5:00 PM 0 2 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1003001 1 0 1 16 0 4:45 PM 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 4:30 PM 0 0 6 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 1 0002000 0 0 3 24 0 4:15 PM 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 4 9 0 0 0 7 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start SNEATH LN HUNTINGTON AVE BART STATION DWY HUNTINGTON AVE 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 3 2 3 1 2 5 3 3 22 110011470 0 0 Peak Hour 0 66 41 65 172 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 16Count Total 0 117 72 125 314 0 1 0 00001128:45 AM 0 14 9 16 39 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 13 10 16 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 16 10 11 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 8:00 AM 0 24 10 17 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 15 7 22 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 32 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 0 13 11 21 45 0 0 0 --4%HV%----- 0 0 7:15 AM 0 13 5 9 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 West North South 7:00 AM 0 9 10 22 0 874 305 0 0 1,7060047907030 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 3%--3%8%4%5%-6% Peak Hour All 0 0 0 1,321 0 0 1,518 572 0 0 0 44 21 172 004400338 262 4,329 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 846 0 0 3,267 476 8,000 0 1,012 4,1691997800402540139014000 0 426 61 1,025 4,329 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 173 57 0 1,075 4,288 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 249 91 0 0 383 660129015700 0 381 74 1,057 4,108 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 183 0 0 224 81 0 1,172 3,831 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 228 76 0 0 516 61098019300 0 459 55 984 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 163 55 0 895 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 136 68 0 0 385 63078016500 0 315 42 780 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 146 66 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start I-380 WB ON RAMP I-380 WB RAMPS EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 3.3%0.85 TOTAL 4.0%0.92 TH RT WB 5.6%0.96 NB 3.5%0.87 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB -- 0 0 0 1000000 0 0 0 07 4N EL CAMINO REAL I-380 WB RAMPS I-380 WB RAMPS EL CAMINO REALI-380 WB ON RAMPEL CAMINO REAL4,329TEV: 0.92PHF:2621,70601,9681,5770703 0 479 1,182 3050 30587401,1792,18500 0 0 0 262 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 1000100 2 01000 0 1 0 1 Peak Hour 0 1Count Total 0 210000000 1 1 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0000000 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0000 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 00000007:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 172 0 Interval Start I-380 WB ON RAMP I-380 WB RAMPS EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 33 8 0 0 44 2102204400 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 98 27 314 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 58 14 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 39 1667200151080600 0 11 5 39 172 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 8 2 0 37 177 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 1 0 0 7 40501100 0 13 4 51 167 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 8 2 0 45 148 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 8 3 0 0 13 80301000 0 19 3 44 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 5 2 0 27 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 5 0 0 0 9 00301000 0 11 2 32 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 8 2 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start I-380 WB ON RAMP I-380 WB RAMPS EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 4 12 3 4 5 1 9 3 41 1800001440 0 0 Peak Hour 0 28 26 25 79 0 0 0 2 0 2 28 13Count Total 0 63 56 63 182 0 1 0 00000025:45 PM 0 6 4 6 16 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 6 6 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 10 6 11 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 5:00 PM 0 6 10 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 12 10 10 32 0 0 0 2 0 2 9 3 0 9 27 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 0 6 5 8 19 0 0 1 --2%HV%----- 0 0 4:15 PM 0 9 5 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 West North South 4:00 PM 0 8 10 16 0 1,504 341 0 1 1,6110048401,356 0 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 0%-0%1%0%1%3%-1% Peak Hour All 0 0 0 2,506 0 0 2,773 701 0 0 0 24 1 79 001200260 344 5,641 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 948 0 1 3,233 722 10,884 0 1,395 5,6414107100367740113036000 0 401 87 1,455 5,603 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 356 0 0 369 110 0 1,446 5,529 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 376 71 0 0 440 900116035300 1 403 93 1,345 5,343 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 287 0 0 349 89 0 1,357 5,243 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 123 0 311 85 0 0 423 1050118031500 0 410 102 1,381 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 329 0 0 321 105 0 1,260 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 318 92 0 0 385 830121026100 0 404 88 1,245 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 245 0 0 319 78 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start I-380 WB ON RAMP I-380 WB RAMPS EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 1.3%0.92 TOTAL 1.4%0.97 TH RT WB 1.5%0.94 NB 1.4%0.96 Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM HV %:PHF EB -- 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 04 14N EL CAMINO REAL I-380 WB RAMPS I-380 WB RAMPS EL CAMINO REALI-380 WB ON RAMPEL CAMINO REAL5,641TEV: 0.97PHF:3441,61111,9562,86001,356 0 484 1,840 3420 3411,50401,8452,09500 0 0 0 344 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 0000000 2 00020 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 000000000 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0000000 0 2 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 PM 0000 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 20000024:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM RT 79 0 Interval Start I-380 WB ON RAMP I-380 WB RAMPS EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 26 0 0 0 24 101601200 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 61 2 182 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 53 3 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 16 79400060050100 0 4 0 16 82 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 27 98 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 10 1040600 0 4 0 20 96 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 0 0 19 103 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 8 0020400 0 9 1 32 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 9 1 0 25 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 11 0070200 0 9 0 27 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 1 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start I-380 WB ON RAMP I-380 WB RAMPS EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 4 6 7 6 1 4 6 8 42 170000485 13 2 Peak Hour 7 0 55 59 121 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 21Count Total 11 0 101 111 223 0 4 4 00001108:45 AM 1 0 14 19 34 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 8:30 AM 1 0 18 15 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 8:15 AM 1 0 9 12 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 8:00 AM 2 0 11 20 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 7:30 AM 0 0 11 14 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 11 23 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 3 0 17 12 32 2 2 2 --4%HV%-2%-3%- 1 0 7:15 AM 1 0 11 8 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 West North South 7:00 AM 2 0 10 0 0 946 554 0 0 1,22215200000 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 3%--3%2%3%--- Peak Hour All 0 193 0 0 0 0 1,707 1,043 0 0 0 42 17 121 000003619 886 3,953 0 HV 0 3 0 4 0 Count Total 0 361 0 279 0 0 0 0 2,147 1,765 7,302 0 963 3,87721111200349193000000 0 327 211 960 3,953 8:45 AM 0 51 0 47 0 0 0 200 144 0 1,007 3,894 8:30 AM 0 38 0 40 0 0 0 272 143 0 0 285 221000000 0 302 186 947 3,675 8:15 AM 0 47 0 39 0 0 0 250 123 0 1,039 3,425 8:00 AM 0 46 0 40 0 0 0 224 144 0 0 308 268000000 0 237 256 901 0 7:45 AM 0 62 0 33 0 0 0 198 146 0 788 0 7:30 AM 0 39 0 25 0 0 0 191 130 0 0 191 215000000 0 148 215 697 0 7:15 AM 0 35 0 26 0 0 0 161 101 07:00 AM 0 43 0 29 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start I-380 EB RAMPS I-380 EB ON RAMP EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 2.8%0.91 TOTAL 3.1%0.95 TH RT WB -- NB 3.7%0.90 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 2.0%0.91 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 5 08 4N EL CAMINO REAL I-380 EB RAMPS I-380 EB ON RAMP EL CAMINO REALI-380 EB RAMPSEL CAMINO REAL3,953TEV: 0.95PHF:8861,22202,1081,13900 0 0 0 5540 55494601,5001,3740152 0 193 345 886 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 0000000 3 00000 0 0 0 1 Peak Hour 0 3Count Total 0 110000000 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 8:30 AM 0000000 0 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:00 AM 0000 2 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 00000007:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 121 0 Interval Start I-380 EB RAMPS I-380 EB ON RAMP EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 36 19 0 0 42 17000000 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 77 34 223 0 Peak Hour 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 62 39 0Count Total 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 34 1235900136000000 0 9 6 34 121 8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 5 0 22 112 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 11 1000000 0 15 5 33 110 8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 32 100 8:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 7 0 0 7 5000000 0 8 6 25 0 7:45 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 8 3 0 20 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 5 3000000 0 9 2 23 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start I-380 EB RAMPS I-380 EB ON RAMP EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 5 12 7 6 6 8 6 6 56 2601121376 9 0 Peak Hour 17 0 28 41 86 0 0 0 3 1 4 26 21Count Total 29 0 80 99 208 0 1 1 00000045:45 PM 4 0 4 11 19 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 5:30 PM 6 0 7 10 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 1 0 5:15 PM 1 0 7 12 20 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 6 0 0 5:00 PM 6 0 10 8 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4:30 PM 3 0 14 15 32 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 3 1 15 34 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 3 0 12 10 25 0 0 2 --1%HV%-1%-3%- 2 0 4:15 PM 2 0 11 18 31 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 West North South 4:00 PM 4 0 15 0 0 1,504 474 0 0 1,41240800000 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 2%--2%2%2%--- Peak Hour All 0 314 0 0 0 0 2,859 914 0 0 0 25 16 86 000001711 695 4,807 0 HV 0 4 0 13 0 Count Total 0 565 0 763 0 0 0 0 2,767 1,379 9,247 0 1,181 4,80739411200309165000000 0 368 177 1,204 4,742 5:45 PM 0 86 0 115 0 0 0 384 107 0 1,233 4,687 5:30 PM 0 74 0 94 0 0 0 374 123 0 0 384 180000000 0 351 173 1,189 4,591 5:15 PM 0 72 0 100 0 0 0 352 132 0 1,116 4,440 5:00 PM 0 82 0 99 0 0 0 322 105 0 0 379 173000000 0 326 174 1,149 0 4:45 PM 0 53 0 84 0 0 0 356 133 0 1,137 0 4:30 PM 0 74 0 86 0 0 0 358 117 0 0 345 163000000 0 305 174 1,038 0 4:15 PM 0 58 0 96 0 0 0 319 85 04:00 PM 0 66 0 89 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start I-380 EB RAMPS I-380 EB ON RAMP EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 05/31/2017 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 1.9%0.93 TOTAL 1.8%0.97 TH RT WB -- NB 1.4%0.98 Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM HV %:PHF EB 2.4%0.90 0 0 0 0100100 0 0 6 07 13N EL CAMINO REAL I-380 EB RAMPS I-380 EB ON RAMP EL CAMINO REALI-380 EB RAMPSEL CAMINO REAL4,807TEV: 0.97PHF:6951,41202,1071,81800 0 0 0 4740 4741,50401,9781,8200408 0 314 722 695 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00001000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 2001001 4 00030 1 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 1Count Total 0 200000000 1 2 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0000000 1 2 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:00 PM 0000 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 10000014:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:00 PM RT 86 0 Interval Start I-380 EB RAMPS I-380 EB ON RAMP EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 17 11 0 0 25 16000000 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 61 38 208 0 Peak Hour 0 4 0 13 0 0 0 48 32 0Count Total 0 8 0 21 0 0 0 19 86220083000000 0 7 3 23 92 5:45 PM 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 1 0 20 101 5:30 PM 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 8000000 0 6 2 24 112 5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 4 0 25 122 5:00 PM 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 7 3000000 0 8 7 32 0 4:45 PM 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 9 5 0 31 0 4:30 PM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 12 6000000 0 9 6 34 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 5 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start I-380 EB RAMPS I-380 EB ON RAMP EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 19 6 27 16 8 9 23 14 122 56 Date: 11/09/2016 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 2.8%0.90 TOTAL 2.5%0.91 TH RT WB 5.3%0.88 NB 2.3%0.86 Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 1.1%0.93 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start San Bruno Ave San Bruno Ave El Camino Real El Camino Real 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT 0 30 43 33 0 27 37 84 14 540 0 7:15 AM 0 42 63 29 26 0 25 168 21 07:00 AM 0 27 59 22 0 20 37 44 173 20 839 0 7:45 AM 0 55 110 77 39 1 32 203 18 1 686 0 7:30 AM 0 37 100 57 0 66 48 201 21 5 43 133 16 1,078 3,143 8:00 AM 0 49 124 50 0 54 52 274 31 4 35 252 230556723072 0 41 39 35 0 54 26 207 21 1,030 3,633 8:15 AM 1 65 99 55 39 0 68 302 37 1 48 204 31 896 3,942 8:45 AM 0 33 78 61 28 1 50 207 26 2 938 3,885 8:30 AM 0 49 118 53 0 28 51 242 34 1 47 203 22 912 3,77621028147240340394834356 Count Total 1 357 751 404 0 333 385 327 1,496 181 6,919 0 Peak Hour All 1 218 451 257 5 384 1,807 216 15 0 7 20 4 100 013502264 97 3,942 0 HV 0 2 6 2 0 9 244 1,025 128 8 156 86623501782091251 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 3%0%4%2%4%3%5%6%4%0%1%3%HV%0%1%1%1%- 4 5 7:15 AM 2 3 6 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 West North South 7:00 AM 5 2 6 5 18 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 5 8 3 6 22 0 1 1 5 7 14 4 7:30 AM 6 11 8 10 35 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 8:15 AM 1 6 9 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 8 6 8:00 AM 2 5 11 10 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 3 9 8 6 26 0 0 0 2 14 7 2 8:30 AM 2 8 9 11 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 10 2100010 52 45 Peak Hour 10 27 32 31 100 2 0 1 0 0 4 5 20Count Total 26 52 60 57 195 3 200021530 0 2 0 0000000 0 0 30 205 1N El Camino Real San Bruno Ave San Bruno Ave El Camino RealSan Bruno Ave El Camino Real3,942TEV: 0.91PHF:978661561,1271,3768125 209 178 512 7350 1281,0252441,3981,2801235 451 218 905 551 1 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start San Bruno Ave San Bruno Ave El Camino Real El Camino Real 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound 0 4 1 18 0 7:15 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 UT LT TH RT UT LT 16 0 7:30 AM 0 1 5 0 0 2 6 4 0 0 1 3 1011102 0 2 4 2 0 0 1 7 2 35 0 7:45 AM 0 1 3 1 3 0 0 7 1 0 1 8 1 28 101 8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 9 1 0 22 91 8:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 3 0 0 1 3 2 20 105 8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 7 1 0 2 2 0031201 0 1 5 3 0 1 3 7 1 30 100 8:45 AM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 7 2 0 26 104610141 10 38 9 195 0 Peak Hour 0 2 6 2 12 0 6 45 9 0Count Total 0 4 18 4 0 13 27 0 07:00 AM RT 100 0 Interval Start San Bruno Ave San Bruno Ave El Camino Real El Camino Real 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 26 4 0 7 20 40913502 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 1 8:00 AM 0000 1 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 00000007:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 3 8:30 AM 0000000 2 3 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310000010 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 THLT 2000000 4 00000 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 120 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 15 9 11 14 32 9 18 7 115 66 Date: 11/09/2016 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 1.0%0.93 TOTAL 1.2%0.95 TH RT WB 1.6%0.90 NB 0.9%0.92 Peak Hour: 5:00 PM 6:00 PM HV %:PHF EB 1.9%0.92 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start San Bruno Ave San Bruno Ave El Camino Real El Camino Real 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT 0 53 65 45 0 61 68 277 45 1,110 0 4:15 PM 0 36 75 44 46 0 66 266 40 164:00 PM 0 32 72 55 0 63 64 77 283 36 1,124 0 4:45 PM 0 34 80 53 43 0 65 277 22 11 1,048 0 4:30 PM 0 42 63 60 0 65 80 264 27 9 61 271 37 1,249 4,531 5:00 PM 0 35 65 61 0 70 77 267 35 14 85 341 4307810746066 0 84 123 56 2 72 68 277 38 1,182 4,603 5:15 PM 0 46 61 72 64 4 91 294 27 11 49 287 39 1,203 4,946 5:45 PM 0 42 64 57 58 0 78 309 22 9 1,312 4,867 5:30 PM 0 49 78 60 0 57 108 331 40 13 67 308 37 1,325 5,022343348553443807712048392 Count Total 0 316 558 462 0 547 744 530 2,388 313 9,553 0 Peak Hour All 0 172 268 406 9 591 2,351 247 91 1 5 8 2 59 010400114 152 5,022 0 HV 0 4 9 0 0 1 333 1,277 123 41 239 1,21625002884282269 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 3%2%2%1%1%1%0%2%2%0%0%1%HV%-2%3%0%- 6 3 4:15 PM 3 3 5 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 West North South 4:00 PM 8 3 7 3 21 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 5 4 4 4 17 0 1 0 3 8 0 0 4:30 PM 7 2 8 10 27 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 4 10 10 5:15 PM 5 2 2 4 13 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 12 4 7 3 5:00 PM 4 4 5 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 1 2 1 5 9 0 1 0 5 8 5 6 5:30 PM 3 7 7 5 22 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 4 2101020 49 29 Peak Hour 13 15 15 16 59 2 0 0 4 1 7 2 35Count Total 36 27 39 38 140 2 2331601924 0 2 0 0100300 0 0 24 2319 0N El Camino Real San Bruno Ave San Bruno Ave El Camino RealSan Bruno Ave El Camino Real5,022TEV: 0.95PHF:1521,2162391,6481,71641226 428 288 942 6300 1231,2773331,7421,7639250 268 172 690 913 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start San Bruno Ave San Bruno Ave El Camino Real El Camino Real 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound 1 2 0 21 0 4:15 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 2 6 0 0 1 2 UT LT TH RT UT LT 16 0 4:30 PM 0 3 4 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 3 1002100 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 0 27 0 4:45 PM 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 1 1 0 15 75 5:15 PM 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 17 81 5:00 PM 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 3 1 13 72 5:30 PM 0 1 2 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 1 1 1002000 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 22 67 5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 3 0 9 59100131 8 25 4 140 0 Peak Hour 0 4 9 0 6 0 3 30 6 1Count Total 0 9 27 0 0 2 19 0 04:00 PM RT 59 0 Interval Start San Bruno Ave San Bruno Ave El Camino Real El Camino Real 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 11 4 1 5 8 20110400 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 1 5:00 PM 0000 1 0 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 4:30 PM 00000004:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 4 5:30 PM 1000001 2 3 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 620010100 Peak Hour 0 1Count Total 0 THLT 6001003 7 00040 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 - 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com Appendix B Level of Service Calculations HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 59 110 66 261 69 226 27 68 617 366 20 441 Future Volume (vph) 59 110 66 261 69 226 27 68 617 366 20 441 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3314 1681 1719 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3314 1681 1719 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 120 72 284 75 246 29 74 671 398 22 479 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 283 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 220 0 179 180 36 0 103 671 115 0 501 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 6 5 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 17.5 17.5 17.5 11.4 34.8 34.8 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 17.5 17.5 17.5 11.4 34.8 34.8 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 364 245 250 225 168 1474 450 538 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.11 0.10 c0.06 0.13 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.73 0.72 0.16 0.61 0.46 0.26 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 49.0 48.9 44.8 52.2 34.8 32.7 40.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.85 2.18 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 10.7 9.5 0.3 6.2 1.0 1.3 23.1 Delay (s) 53.8 59.7 58.4 45.2 38.6 30.5 72.5 63.6 Level of Service D E E D D C E E Approach Delay (s) 53.8 53.4 45.5 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1235 41 Future Volume (vph) 1235 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5058 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5058 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1342 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1384 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 59.9 Effective Green, g (s) 59.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2524 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 Delay (s) 21.6 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 32.7 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 839 67 146 509 42 4 35 7 173 25 22 Future Volume (vph) 2 839 67 146 509 42 4 35 7 173 25 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3496 1770 3491 1770 1863 1583 1757 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.87 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3496 1770 3491 1326 1863 1583 1558 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 912 73 159 553 46 4 38 8 188 27 24 RTOR Reduction (vph)060050000158016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 979 0 159 594 0 0 42 8 30 0 53 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 26.0 7.7 32.9 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 26.0 7.7 32.9 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.48 0.14 0.60 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 25 1661 249 2099 181 255 217 213 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 c0.09 0.17 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.59 0.64 0.28 0.23 0.03 0.14 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 10.5 22.2 5.2 21.0 20.5 20.8 21.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.5 5.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6 Delay (s) 28.0 11.0 27.5 5.3 21.7 20.5 21.1 21.7 Level of Service C B C A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 11.0 10.0 21.1 21.7 Approach LOS B A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 17 Future Volume (vph) 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 29 1049 49 108 1481 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 29 1049 49 108 1481 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 32 1140 53 117 1610 Pedestrians 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 929 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.95 0.95 vC, conflicting volume 1941 410 1197 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1108 180 1011 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 96 82 cM capacity (veh/h) 143 784 643 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 32 456 456 281 117 537 537 537 Volume Left 0000117000 Volume Right 32 0 0 53 0000 cSH 784 1700 1700 1700 643 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft)300017000 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 36 89 4 31 222 194 15 Future Volume (vph) 36 89 4 31 222 194 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 97 4 34 241 211 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 86 00090 Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 11 0 38 241 218 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.7 3.7 8.1 20.3 7.7 Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 3.7 8.1 20.3 7.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.62 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 175 434 2177 815 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.02 c0.07 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 13.3 13.1 9.6 2.6 10.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 13.8 13.2 9.7 2.6 10.5 Level of Service B B A A B Approach Delay (s) 13.4 3.6 10.5 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 33.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 240 395 259 138 75 23 122 881 345 7 63 1204 Future Volume (vph) 240 395 259 138 75 23 122 881 345 7 63 1204 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 261 429 282 150 82 25 133 958 375 8 68 1309 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 0 23 0 0 187 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 429 174 150 82 2 133 958 188 0 76 1309 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 7 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 8.4 60.1 60.1 6.8 58.5 Effective Green, g (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 8.4 60.1 60.1 6.8 58.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 700 722 313 303 312 139 240 2546 777 194 2478 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.12 c0.04 0.02 c0.04 0.19 0.02 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.00 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.59 0.56 0.50 0.26 0.02 0.55 0.38 0.24 0.39 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 43.2 42.9 52.1 51.1 49.9 54.0 18.4 17.0 54.6 21.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.57 1.36 1.00 1.62 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.3 2.1 1.3 0.5 0.0 2.6 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.8 Delay (s) 41.5 44.6 45.0 53.4 51.5 50.0 36.7 11.0 23.9 55.7 35.1 Level of Service DDDDDDDBC ED Approach Delay (s) 43.9 52.5 16.6 39.6 Approach LOS D D B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 161 Future Volume (vph) 161 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 175 RTOR Reduction (vph) 81 Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 58.5 Effective Green, g (s) 58.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 771 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 16.8 Progression Factor 3.97 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 66.9 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 139 235 29 5 80 154 13 3 5 9 130 14 Future Volume (vph) 139 235 29 5 80 154 13 3 5 9 130 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1656 3433 1863 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1656 3433 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 151 255 32 5 87 167 14 3 5 10 141 15 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 0 138 040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 151 255 9 5 87 29 14 4 0 0 151 15 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 19.0 19.0 0.7 11.5 11.5 19.6 19.6 8.2 8.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 19.0 19.0 0.7 11.5 11.5 19.6 19.6 8.2 8.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 429 540 449 18 621 273 1027 495 429 233 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.14 0.00 0.02 c0.00 0.00 c0.04 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.47 0.02 0.28 0.14 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 26.2 19.1 16.6 32.1 22.8 22.7 16.1 16.1 26.2 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 0.0 8.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 26.7 19.8 16.6 40.4 22.9 22.9 16.2 16.2 26.7 25.4 Level of Service C B B D C C B B C C Approach Delay (s) 21.9 23.2 16.2 26.1 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 102 Future Volume (vph) 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1562 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1562 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 97 Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 195 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Delay (s) 25.4 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 703 0 874 0 0 1706 262 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 703 0 874 0 0 1706 262 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 521 0 764 0 950 0 0 1854 285 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000024000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 521 0 740 0 950 0 0 1854 285 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 56.0 50.5 87.5 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 56.0 50.5 87.5 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.47 0.42 0.73 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 672 1405 2139 3707 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.14 0.19 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.53 0.44 0.50 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 22.6 24.8 6.9 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.41 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 Delay (s) 51.3 23.0 28.5 3.2 0.2 Level of Service D C C A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 34.5 28.5 2.8 Approach LOS A C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 198 152 0 1535 1299 0 Future Volume (vph) 198 152 0 1535 1299 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3379 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3379 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 215 165 0 1668 1412 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 19 58 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 242 61 0 1668 1412 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 8 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 13.9 97.1 97.1 Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 13.9 97.1 97.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.81 0.81 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 391 166 4114 4114 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.33 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.37 0.41 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 50.5 49.0 3.3 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.28 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 1.4 0.3 0.2 Delay (s) 53.6 50.3 2.4 1.0 Level of Service D D A A Approach Delay (s) 52.6 2.4 1.0 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 223 451 235 178 209 130 1 244 1045 128 8 Future Volume (vph) 1 223 451 235 178 209 130 1 244 1045 128 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3274 3433 5085 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3274 3433 5085 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 242 490 255 193 227 141 1 265 1136 139 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 107 0 91 0000740 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 243 490 148 193 277 0 0 266 1136 65 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 30 1 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 25.7 25.7 11.0 16.0 13.8 54.7 54.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 25.7 25.7 11.0 16.0 13.8 54.7 54.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 757 326 314 436 394 2317 712 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.14 0.06 0.08 c0.08 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.65 0.45 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.49 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 43.0 41.0 52.5 49.2 50.9 22.9 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.4 1.9 1.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 0.7 0.3 Delay (s) 61.1 44.9 42.1 56.0 52.3 55.5 23.6 18.8 Level of Service E D D E D E C B Approach Delay (s) 48.2 53.5 28.7 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 08/31/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 166 926 104 Future Volume (vph) 166 926 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 1007 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 1007 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 51.5 51.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 51.5 51.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 303 2182 667 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.46 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 24.4 20.2 Progression Factor 0.91 0.91 0.89 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.7 0.2 Delay (s) 51.7 22.7 18.2 Level of Service D C B Approach Delay (s) 26.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 87 95 66 405 141 375 90 204 1611 327 22 253 Future Volume (vph) 87 95 66 405 141 375 90 204 1611 327 22 253 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3313 1681 1728 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3313 1681 1728 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 103 72 440 153 408 98 222 1751 355 24 275 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 277 0 0 0 217 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 245 0 295 298 131 0 320 1751 138 0 299 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 21 8 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 30.1 30.1 30.1 29.6 58.3 58.3 27.9 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 30.1 30.1 30.1 29.6 58.3 58.3 27.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 346 337 346 297 349 1976 600 329 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.18 0.17 c0.18 c0.34 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.88 0.86 0.44 0.92 0.89 0.23 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 64.9 58.1 57.9 52.6 59.0 42.8 30.8 59.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.34 5.13 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 21.5 19.2 1.0 20.6 4.3 0.6 27.4 Delay (s) 71.4 79.6 77.1 53.6 77.0 61.6 158.6 87.3 Level of Service E E E D E E F F Approach Delay (s) 71.4 68.3 77.8 Approach LOS E E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 67.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1024 95 Future Volume (vph) 1024 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5012 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5012 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1113 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1209 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 56.6 Effective Green, g (s) 56.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1891 v/s Ratio Prot 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 38.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 Delay (s) 40.0 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 49.3 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 6 609 65 318 754 72 6 141 40 394 16 7 Future Volume (vph) 6 609 65 318 754 72 6 141 40 394 16 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3484 1770 3482 1770 1863 1583 1706 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3484 1770 3482 1354 1863 1583 1578 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 662 71 346 820 78 7 153 43 428 17 8 RTOR Reduction (vph)090060000292017 Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 724 0 346 892 0 0 160 43 136 0 29 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 25.1 18.0 42.3 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 25.1 18.0 42.3 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.35 0.25 0.59 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 19 1224 446 2062 280 386 328 327 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.21 c0.20 0.26 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.09 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.59 0.78 0.43 0.57 0.11 0.42 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 35.0 19.0 24.8 8.0 25.4 23.0 24.5 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.7 0.8 8.2 0.1 2.8 0.1 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 46.7 19.7 33.1 8.1 28.3 23.1 25.4 23.0 Level of Service D B C A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 20.0 15.1 26.0 23.0 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 19 Future Volume (vph) 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 72 2157 100 3 87 1495 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 72 2157 100 3 87 1495 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 78 2345 109 0 95 1625 Pedestrians 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 929 pX, platoon unblocked 0.73 0.64 0.00 0.64 vC, conflicting volume 3140 845 0 2463 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1033 0 0 1329 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 0.0 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 0.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 89 0 71 cM capacity (veh/h) 117 690 0 328 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 78 938 938 578 95 542 542 542 Volume Left 000095000 Volume Right 78 0 0 109 0000 cSH 690 1700 1700 1700 328 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.55 0.55 0.34 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 10.9 0.0 1.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 81 104 20 54 458 403 36 Future Volume (vph) 81 104 20 54 458 403 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3489 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3489 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 113 22 59 498 438 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 92 0 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 21 0 81 498 467 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 5.5 2.6 15.2 8.1 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 5.5 2.6 15.2 8.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.51 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 327 289 154 1811 951 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.05 0.14 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.07 0.53 0.27 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 10.0 13.0 4.1 9.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.4 Delay (s) 10.8 10.1 16.2 4.2 9.5 Level of Service B B B A A Approach Delay (s) 10.4 5.9 9.5 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 29.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 378 277 165 1 438 391 181 1 286 1744 341 9 Future Volume (vph) 378 277 165 1 438 391 181 1 286 1744 341 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 411 301 179 1 476 425 197 1 311 1896 371 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 90 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 131 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 411 301 89 0 477 425 103 0 312 1896 240 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.4 26.4 26.4 29.1 29.1 29.1 20.7 67.2 67.2 Effective Green, g (s) 26.4 26.4 26.4 29.1 29.1 29.1 20.7 67.2 67.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 604 622 268 666 686 307 473 2278 689 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.09 c0.14 0.12 0.09 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.48 0.33 0.72 0.62 0.33 0.66 0.83 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 57.9 55.7 54.1 56.6 55.4 52.1 61.3 36.4 27.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.57 0.22 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.6 0.7 3.7 1.7 0.6 2.7 3.0 1.1 Delay (s) 61.0 56.3 54.8 60.3 57.1 52.8 46.9 23.8 7.0 Level of Service E E D E E D D C A Approach Delay (s) 58.2 57.7 24.2 Approach LOS E E C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 119 1090 313 Future Volume (vph) 119 1090 313 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 129 1185 340 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 173 Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 1185 167 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.3 55.8 55.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.3 55.8 55.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 1891 588 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.63 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 68.8 38.6 33.1 Progression Factor 0.95 1.29 2.71 Incremental Delay, d2 6.7 1.5 1.1 Delay (s) 72.1 51.2 90.7 Level of Service E D F Approach Delay (s) 61.0 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 237 272 34 1 8 244 316 172 32 40 30 Future Volume (vph) 2 237 272 34 1 8 244 316 172 32 40 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1533 1770 3539 1553 3433 1672 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1533 1770 3539 1553 3433 1672 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 258 296 37 1 9 265 343 187 35 43 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 272 0 32 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 260 296 12 0 10 265 71 187 46 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 11 23 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 2 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 26.2 26.2 0.7 16.0 16.0 19.7 19.7 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 26.2 26.2 0.7 16.0 16.0 19.7 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 481 628 516 15 728 319 870 423 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.16 0.01 0.07 c0.05 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.47 0.02 0.67 0.36 0.22 0.21 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 20.3 17.2 38.4 26.5 25.7 22.9 22.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.6 0.0 75.9 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 Delay (s) 32.3 20.9 17.2 114.3 26.8 26.0 23.5 22.8 Level of Service C C B F CCCC Approach Delay (s) 25.7 27.8 23.3 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 244 28 261 Future Volume (vph) 244 28 261 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1546 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 265 30 284 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 236 Lane Group Flow (vph) 298 30 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16 Turn Type Split NA Perm Protected Phases 6 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 13.1 13.1 Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 13.1 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 578 314 260 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 27.3 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 30.2 27.4 28.1 Level of Service C C C Approach Delay (s) 29.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 496 0 1356 0 1504 0 0 1644 351 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 496 0 1356 0 1504 0 0 1644 351 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 539 0 1474 0 1635 0 0 1787 382 RTOR Reduction (vph)000005000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 539 0 1469 0 1635 0 0 1787 382 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)14 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 80.9 55.6 114.7 150.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 80.9 55.6 114.7 150.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.54 0.37 0.76 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 601 1586 1884 3888 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.34 c0.32 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.93 0.87 0.46 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 60.5 31.8 43.8 6.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.39 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.0 9.6 4.8 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 76.5 41.4 49.4 2.8 0.3 Level of Service E D D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 50.8 49.4 2.3 Approach LOS A D D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 318 408 0 2001 1434 0 Future Volume (vph) 318 408 0 2001 1434 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3315 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3315 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 346 443 0 2175 1559 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 31 31 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 505 222 0 2175 1559 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 7 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.1 30.1 110.9 110.9 Effective Green, g (s) 30.1 30.1 110.9 110.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 665 289 3759 3759 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.43 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.77 0.58 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 56.5 56.6 8.9 7.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.40 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 11.6 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 61.5 68.2 6.3 3.2 Level of Service E E A A Approach Delay (s) 63.7 6.3 3.2 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 268 250 288 428 231 9 333 1287 123 41 242 Future Volume (vph) 177 268 250 288 428 231 9 333 1287 123 41 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 192 291 272 313 465 251 10 362 1399 134 45 263 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 48 00004600 Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 291 141 313 668 0 0 372 1399 88 0 308 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 24 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.3 36.7 36.7 18.3 34.7 21.2 59.8 59.8 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 20.3 36.7 36.7 18.3 34.7 21.2 59.8 59.8 17.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.23 0.14 0.40 0.40 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 865 369 418 762 485 2027 631 393 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.08 0.09 c0.20 c0.11 c0.28 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.34 0.38 0.75 0.88 0.77 0.69 0.14 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 46.6 47.2 63.6 55.6 62.0 37.4 28.7 64.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 Incremental Delay, d2 17.5 0.2 0.7 7.2 11.0 7.1 2.0 0.5 7.5 Delay (s) 80.4 46.9 47.9 70.8 66.6 69.2 39.4 29.2 47.9 Level of Service F D D E E E D C D Approach Delay (s) 55.8 67.9 44.5 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 08/28/2017 410 Noor Avenue 06/16/2017 Existing_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1231 153 Future Volume (vph) 1231 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1338 166 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 84 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1338 82 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.8 55.8 Effective Green, g (s) 55.8 55.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1891 566 v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 31.3 Progression Factor 0.91 1.42 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.4 Delay (s) 38.2 44.7 Level of Service D D Approach Delay (s) 40.5 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 59 110 66 261 69 233 27 68 622 366 20 443 Future Volume (vph) 59 110 66 261 69 233 27 68 622 366 20 443 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3314 1681 1719 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3314 1681 1719 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 120 72 284 75 253 29 74 676 398 22 482 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 0 216 0 0 0 283 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 220 0 179 180 37 0 103 676 115 0 504 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 6 5 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 17.5 17.5 17.5 11.4 34.8 34.8 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 17.5 17.5 17.5 11.4 34.8 34.8 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 364 245 250 225 168 1474 450 538 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.11 0.10 c0.06 0.13 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.73 0.72 0.16 0.61 0.46 0.26 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 49.0 48.9 44.8 52.2 34.9 32.7 40.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.83 2.19 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 10.7 9.5 0.3 6.2 1.0 1.3 23.9 Delay (s) 53.8 59.7 58.4 45.2 38.0 30.0 72.9 64.5 Level of Service D E E D D C E E Approach Delay (s) 53.8 53.3 45.2 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1236 41 Future Volume (vph) 1236 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5058 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5058 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1343 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1385 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 59.9 Effective Green, g (s) 59.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2524 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 Delay (s) 21.6 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 33.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 839 69 149 509 42 4 42 7 186 25 22 Future Volume (vph) 2 839 69 149 509 42 4 42 7 186 25 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3491 1770 1863 1583 1757 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.87 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3491 1326 1863 1583 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 912 75 162 553 46 4 46 8 202 27 24 RTOR Reduction (vph)060050000157015 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 981 0 162 594 0 0 50 8 45 0 54 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 26.2 7.7 33.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 26.2 7.7 33.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.47 0.14 0.60 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 25 1658 246 2093 187 263 223 220 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 c0.09 0.17 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.59 0.66 0.28 0.27 0.03 0.20 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 10.6 22.5 5.3 21.2 20.4 20.9 21.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.6 6.2 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.6 Delay (s) 28.2 11.2 28.7 5.4 21.9 20.5 21.4 21.7 Level of Service C B C A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 11.2 10.4 21.5 21.7 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 17 Future Volume (vph) 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 34 1049 61 109 1481 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 34 1049 61 109 1481 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 37 1140 66 118 1610 Pedestrians 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 929 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.95 0.95 vC, conflicting volume 1950 417 1210 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1109 180 1019 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 81 cM capacity (veh/h) 142 783 637 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 37 456 456 294 118 537 537 537 Volume Left 0000118000 Volume Right 37 0 0 66 0000 cSH 783 1700 1700 1700 637 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.19 0.32 0.32 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft)400017000 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 49 99 4 33 234 281 19 Future Volume (vph) 49 99 4 33 234 281 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 108 4 36 254 305 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 92 00080 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 16 0 40 254 318 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.1 5.1 6.3 19.5 8.7 Effective Green, g (s) 5.1 5.1 6.3 19.5 8.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.58 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 268 237 331 2053 906 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.02 c0.07 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 12.5 12.2 11.3 3.2 10.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 12.8 12.3 11.5 3.2 10.4 Level of Service B B B A B Approach Delay (s) 12.5 4.3 10.4 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 33.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 240 395 259 229 75 23 122 893 357 7 63 1204 Future Volume (vph) 240 395 259 229 75 23 122 893 357 7 63 1204 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 261 429 282 249 82 25 133 971 388 8 68 1309 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 0 22 0 0 205 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 429 174 249 82 3 133 971 183 0 76 1309 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 7 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 14.1 14.1 14.1 8.3 56.6 56.6 6.8 55.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 14.1 14.1 14.1 8.3 56.6 56.6 6.8 55.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 700 722 313 403 415 186 237 2398 732 194 2334 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.12 c0.07 0.02 c0.04 0.19 0.02 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.00 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.59 0.56 0.62 0.20 0.02 0.56 0.40 0.25 0.39 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 43.2 42.9 50.4 47.8 46.8 54.1 20.7 19.0 54.6 23.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.56 1.34 1.02 1.56 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.3 2.1 2.8 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.9 Delay (s) 41.5 44.6 45.0 53.2 48.1 46.8 37.4 12.1 26.2 57.2 37.9 Level of Service DDDDDDDBC ED Approach Delay (s) 43.9 51.6 18.1 42.4 Approach LOS D D B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 161 Future Volume (vph) 161 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 175 RTOR Reduction (vph) 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 90 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.1 Effective Green, g (s) 55.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 726 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 Progression Factor 3.75 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 70.1 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 151 235 29 5 80 156 13 3 5 9 136 14 Future Volume (vph) 151 235 29 5 80 156 13 3 5 9 136 14 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1656 3433 1863 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1656 3433 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 164 255 32 5 87 170 14 3 5 10 148 15 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 0 141 040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 164 255 9 5 87 29 14 4 0 0 158 15 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 19.3 19.3 0.7 11.5 11.5 19.7 19.7 8.8 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 19.3 19.3 0.7 11.5 11.5 19.7 19.7 8.8 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 438 540 449 18 612 269 1016 490 454 246 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.14 0.00 0.02 c0.00 0.00 c0.05 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.47 0.02 0.28 0.14 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 19.4 16.9 32.6 23.3 23.2 16.5 16.5 26.2 25.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 0.0 8.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 27.1 20.1 16.9 40.9 23.4 23.4 16.6 16.5 26.7 25.3 Level of Service C C B D C C B B C C Approach Delay (s) 22.4 23.7 16.6 26.1 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 193 Future Volume (vph) 193 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1562 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1562 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 210 RTOR Reduction (vph) 182 Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 206 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 25.8 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 715 0 886 0 0 1760 299 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 715 0 886 0 0 1760 299 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 521 0 777 0 963 0 0 1913 325 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000022000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 521 0 755 0 963 0 0 1913 325 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 56.0 50.5 87.5 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 56.0 50.5 87.5 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.47 0.42 0.73 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 672 1405 2139 3707 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.15 0.19 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.54 0.45 0.52 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 22.8 24.8 7.1 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.12 0.38 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 Delay (s) 51.3 23.2 28.5 3.1 0.2 Level of Service D C C A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 34.5 28.5 2.7 Approach LOS A C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 207 152 0 1538 1311 0 Future Volume (vph) 207 152 0 1538 1311 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3385 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3385 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 225 165 0 1672 1425 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 56 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 252 66 0 1672 1425 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 8 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 14.2 96.8 96.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 14.2 96.8 96.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.81 0.81 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 400 170 4101 4101 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.33 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.39 0.41 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 50.4 48.9 3.3 3.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.27 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 1.5 0.3 0.2 Delay (s) 53.6 50.3 2.4 1.0 Level of Service D D A A Approach Delay (s) 52.6 2.4 1.0 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 223 451 235 178 209 130 1 244 1048 128 8 Future Volume (vph) 1 223 451 235 178 209 130 1 244 1048 128 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3274 3433 5085 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3274 3433 5085 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 242 490 255 193 227 141 1 265 1139 139 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 107 0 91 0000740 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 243 490 148 193 277 0 0 266 1139 65 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 30 1 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 25.7 25.7 11.0 16.0 13.8 54.7 54.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 25.7 25.7 11.0 16.0 13.8 54.7 54.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 757 326 314 436 394 2317 712 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.14 0.06 0.08 c0.08 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.65 0.45 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.49 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 43.0 41.0 52.5 49.2 50.9 22.9 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.4 1.9 1.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 0.7 0.3 Delay (s) 61.1 44.9 42.1 56.0 52.3 55.5 23.6 18.8 Level of Service E D D E D E C B Approach Delay (s) 48.2 53.5 28.7 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 166 938 104 Future Volume (vph) 166 938 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 1020 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 1020 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 51.5 51.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 51.5 51.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 303 2182 667 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.47 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 24.5 20.2 Progression Factor 0.91 0.89 0.78 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.7 0.2 Delay (s) 51.6 22.3 16.0 Level of Service D C B Approach Delay (s) 26.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 87 95 66 405 141 379 90 204 1614 327 22 260 Future Volume (vph) 87 95 66 405 141 379 90 204 1614 327 22 260 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3313 1681 1728 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3313 1681 1728 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 103 72 440 153 412 98 222 1754 355 24 283 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 277 0 0 0 218 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 245 0 295 298 135 0 320 1754 137 0 307 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 21 8 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 30.1 30.1 30.1 29.6 57.8 57.8 28.4 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 30.1 30.1 30.1 29.6 57.8 57.8 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 346 337 346 297 349 1959 595 335 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.18 0.17 c0.18 c0.34 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.88 0.86 0.45 0.92 0.90 0.23 0.92 Uniform Delay, d1 64.9 58.1 57.9 52.7 59.0 43.3 31.1 59.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.37 5.18 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 21.5 19.2 1.1 20.2 4.6 0.6 28.6 Delay (s) 71.4 79.6 77.1 53.8 75.4 64.0 161.7 88.3 Level of Service E E E D E E F F Approach Delay (s) 71.4 68.3 79.8 Approach LOS E E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 68.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1029 95 Future Volume (vph) 1029 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5012 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5012 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1118 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1214 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 56.6 Effective Green, g (s) 56.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1891 v/s Ratio Prot 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 38.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 Delay (s) 40.1 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 49.8 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 6 609 72 330 754 72 6 145 40 400 16 7 Future Volume (vph) 6 609 72 330 754 72 6 145 40 400 16 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3479 1770 3482 1770 1863 1583 1706 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3479 1770 3482 1354 1863 1583 1580 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 662 78 359 820 78 7 158 43 435 17 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0060000290017 Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 730 0 359 892 0 0 165 43 145 0 29 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 25.4 18.0 42.6 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 25.4 18.0 42.6 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.35 0.25 0.59 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 19 1223 441 2054 286 394 335 334 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.21 c0.20 0.26 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.09 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.60 0.81 0.43 0.58 0.11 0.43 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 19.2 25.5 8.2 25.5 23.0 24.7 22.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.7 0.8 11.0 0.1 2.8 0.1 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 47.1 20.0 36.5 8.3 28.4 23.1 25.6 23.0 Level of Service D B D A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 20.2 16.4 26.1 23.0 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 19 Future Volume (vph) 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 75 2157 145 3 92 1495 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 75 2157 145 3 92 1495 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 82 2345 158 0 100 1625 Pedestrians 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 929 pX, platoon unblocked 0.71 0.62 0.00 0.62 vC, conflicting volume 3175 870 0 2512 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 989 0 0 1316 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 0.0 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 0.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 88 0 69 cM capacity (veh/h) 119 671 0 323 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 82 938 938 627 100 542 542 542 Volume Left 0000100000 Volume Right 82 0 0 158 0000 cSH 671 1700 1700 1700 323 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.55 0.55 0.37 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 11.1 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 126 109 20 59 504 449 39 Future Volume (vph) 126 109 20 59 504 449 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3491 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3491 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 137 118 22 64 548 488 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 97 00090 Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 21 0 86 548 521 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.4 6.4 3.8 21.4 13.1 Effective Green, g (s) 6.4 6.4 3.8 21.4 13.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.58 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 307 271 182 2058 1242 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.05 0.15 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.08 0.47 0.27 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 13.6 12.7 15.6 3.8 9.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.2 Delay (s) 14.6 12.8 17.5 3.9 9.2 Level of Service B B B A A Approach Delay (s) 13.8 5.7 9.2 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 378 277 165 486 391 181 1 286 1789 386 9 119 Future Volume (vph) 378 277 165 486 391 181 1 286 1789 386 9 119 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 411 301 179 528 425 197 1 311 1945 420 10 129 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 90 0 0 92 0 0 0 149 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 411 301 89 528 425 105 0 312 1945 271 0 139 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.4 26.4 26.4 32.1 32.1 32.1 20.7 64.7 64.7 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 26.4 26.4 26.4 32.1 32.1 32.1 20.7 64.7 64.7 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.43 0.43 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 604 622 268 734 757 338 473 2193 663 201 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.09 c0.15 0.12 0.09 c0.38 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.48 0.33 0.72 0.56 0.31 0.66 0.89 0.41 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 57.9 55.7 54.1 54.8 52.7 49.6 61.3 39.3 29.4 69.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.59 0.26 0.94 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.6 0.7 3.4 1.0 0.5 2.6 4.6 1.5 9.3 Delay (s) 61.0 56.3 54.8 58.2 53.6 50.2 47.3 27.9 9.1 74.4 Level of Service E E D E D D D C A E Approach Delay (s) 58.2 55.1 27.2 Approach LOS E E C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1090 313 Future Volume (vph) 1090 313 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1185 340 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 179 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1185 161 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 52.8 52.8 Effective Green, g (s) 52.8 52.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1789 557 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 35.1 Progression Factor 1.29 2.73 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 1.2 Delay (s) 54.7 96.9 Level of Service D F Approach Delay (s) 65.0 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 282 272 34 8 244 322 172 32 40 30 247 Future Volume (vph) 2 282 272 34 8 244 322 172 32 40 30 247 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1532 1770 3539 1553 3433 1672 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1532 1770 3539 1553 3433 1672 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 307 296 37 9 265 350 187 35 43 33 268 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 24 0 0 279 0 32 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 309 296 13 9 265 71 187 46 0 0 301 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 11 23 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Split Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 27.3 27.3 0.7 16.2 16.2 19.7 19.7 13.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 27.3 27.3 0.7 16.2 16.2 19.7 19.7 13.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 510 640 526 15 722 316 851 414 592 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.16 0.01 0.07 c0.05 0.03 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.46 0.02 0.60 0.37 0.23 0.22 0.11 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 31.6 20.3 17.2 39.2 27.2 26.4 23.7 23.1 29.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.5 0.0 51.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 Delay (s) 33.7 20.9 17.3 90.3 27.5 26.7 24.3 23.6 30.5 Level of Service C C B F CCCC C Approach Delay (s) 26.8 28.0 24.1 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.4 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 28 309 Future Volume (vph) 28 309 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1546 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 336 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 278 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 58 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 13.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 321 266 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.4 Delay (s) 27.8 28.7 Level of Service C C Approach Delay (s) 29.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 496 0 1398 0 1552 0 0 1673 370 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 496 0 1398 0 1552 0 0 1673 370 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 539 0 1520 0 1687 0 0 1818 402 RTOR Reduction (vph)000005000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 539 0 1515 0 1687 0 0 1818 402 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)14 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 80.9 55.6 114.7 150.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 80.9 55.6 114.7 150.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.54 0.37 0.76 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 601 1586 1884 3888 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.35 c0.33 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.96 0.90 0.47 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 60.5 32.8 44.5 6.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.37 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.0 13.4 5.9 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 76.5 46.2 50.7 2.7 0.3 Level of Service E D D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 54.1 50.7 2.3 Approach LOS A D D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 354 408 0 2013 1441 0 Future Volume (vph) 354 408 0 2013 1441 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3327 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3327 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 385 443 0 2188 1566 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 31 31 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 536 230 0 2188 1566 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 7 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 31.4 31.4 109.6 109.6 Effective Green, g (s) 31.4 31.4 109.6 109.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.73 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 696 301 3715 3715 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.43 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.76 0.59 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 55.9 55.8 9.6 7.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.39 Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 11.0 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 61.2 66.8 6.7 3.4 Level of Service E E A A Approach Delay (s) 62.9 6.7 3.4 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 268 250 288 428 231 9 333 1299 123 41 242 Future Volume (vph) 177 268 250 288 428 231 9 333 1299 123 41 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 192 291 272 313 465 251 10 362 1412 134 45 263 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 48 00004600 Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 291 141 313 668 0 0 372 1412 88 0 308 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 24 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.3 36.7 36.7 18.3 34.7 21.2 59.8 59.8 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 20.3 36.7 36.7 18.3 34.7 21.2 59.8 59.8 17.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.23 0.14 0.40 0.40 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 865 369 418 762 485 2027 631 393 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.08 0.09 c0.20 c0.11 c0.28 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.34 0.38 0.75 0.88 0.77 0.70 0.14 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 46.6 47.2 63.6 55.6 62.0 37.5 28.7 64.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 Incremental Delay, d2 17.5 0.2 0.7 7.2 11.0 7.1 2.0 0.5 7.4 Delay (s) 80.4 46.9 47.9 70.8 66.6 69.2 39.6 29.2 48.3 Level of Service F D D E E E D C D Approach Delay (s) 55.8 67.9 44.6 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Existing+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1238 153 Future Volume (vph) 1238 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1346 166 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 84 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1346 82 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.8 55.8 Effective Green, g (s) 55.8 55.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1891 566 v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 40.2 31.3 Progression Factor 0.92 1.43 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.4 Delay (s) 38.5 45.0 Level of Service D D Approach Delay (s) 40.8 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 59 112 66 286 72 255 27 68 661 366 20 458 Future Volume (vph) 59 112 66 286 72 255 27 68 661 366 20 458 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3316 1681 1718 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3316 1681 1718 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 122 72 311 78 277 29 74 718 398 22 498 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 0 235 0 0 0 286 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 222 0 193 196 42 0 103 718 112 0 520 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 6 5 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 11.4 33.9 33.9 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 11.4 33.9 33.9 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 256 261 235 168 1436 439 538 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.11 0.11 c0.06 0.14 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.75 0.75 0.18 0.61 0.50 0.26 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 48.7 48.7 44.3 52.2 36.0 33.3 41.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.86 2.12 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 11.9 11.5 0.4 6.3 1.2 1.4 30.1 Delay (s) 53.7 60.6 60.2 44.7 39.5 32.2 72.1 71.3 Level of Service D E E D D C E E Approach Delay (s) 53.7 53.8 45.8 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1261 41 Future Volume (vph) 1261 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5058 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5058 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1371 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1413 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 59.0 Effective Green, g (s) 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2486 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 Delay (s) 22.5 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 35.6 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 842 67 148 511 42 4 35 7 176 25 22 Future Volume (vph) 2 842 67 148 511 42 4 35 7 176 25 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3496 1770 3491 1770 1863 1583 1757 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.87 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3496 1770 3491 1326 1863 1583 1560 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 915 73 161 555 46 4 38 8 191 27 24 RTOR Reduction (vph)060050000157016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 982 0 161 596 0 0 42 8 34 0 53 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 26.1 7.7 33.0 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 26.1 7.7 33.0 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.48 0.14 0.60 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 25 1662 248 2098 183 257 219 215 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 c0.09 0.17 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.59 0.65 0.28 0.23 0.03 0.16 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 26.7 10.5 22.3 5.3 21.0 20.5 20.8 21.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.6 5.8 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.6 Delay (s) 28.1 11.1 28.1 5.3 21.7 20.5 21.2 21.7 Level of Service C B C A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 11.1 10.1 21.2 21.7 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.9 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 17 Future Volume (vph) 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 29 1063 49 108 1506 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 29 1063 49 108 1506 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 32 1155 53 117 1637 Pedestrians 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 931 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.94 0.94 vC, conflicting volume 1965 416 1212 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1101 178 1020 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 96 82 cM capacity (veh/h) 143 786 636 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 32 462 462 284 117 546 546 546 Volume Left 0000117000 Volume Right 32 0 0 53 0000 cSH 786 1700 1700 1700 636 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft)300017000 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 36 89 4 31 224 197 15 Future Volume (vph) 36 89 4 31 224 197 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3497 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3497 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 97 4 34 243 214 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 86 00090 Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 11 0 38 243 221 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.7 3.7 8.0 20.3 7.8 Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 3.7 8.0 20.3 7.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.62 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 175 429 2177 826 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.02 c0.07 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 13.3 13.1 9.7 2.6 10.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 13.8 13.2 9.8 2.6 10.4 Level of Service B B A A B Approach Delay (s) 13.4 3.6 10.4 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 33.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 240 395 259 138 75 23 122 895 345 7 63 1229 Future Volume (vph) 240 395 259 138 75 23 122 895 345 7 63 1229 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 261 429 282 150 82 25 133 973 375 8 68 1336 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 0 23 0 0 187 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 429 174 150 82 2 133 973 188 0 76 1336 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 7 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 8.4 60.1 60.1 6.8 58.5 Effective Green, g (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 8.4 60.1 60.1 6.8 58.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 700 722 313 303 312 139 240 2546 777 194 2478 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.12 c0.04 0.02 c0.04 0.19 0.02 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.00 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.59 0.56 0.50 0.26 0.02 0.55 0.38 0.24 0.39 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 43.2 42.9 52.1 51.1 49.9 54.0 18.5 17.0 54.6 21.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.58 1.35 0.99 1.59 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.3 2.1 1.3 0.5 0.0 2.6 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.8 Delay (s) 41.5 44.6 45.0 53.4 51.5 50.0 37.0 11.2 23.6 55.3 34.8 Level of Service DDDDDDDBC EC Approach Delay (s) 43.9 52.5 16.7 38.9 Approach LOS D D B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 161 Future Volume (vph) 161 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 175 RTOR Reduction (vph) 79 Lane Group Flow (vph) 96 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 58.5 Effective Green, g (s) 58.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 771 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 16.8 Progression Factor 3.74 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 63.1 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 139 235 29 5 80 154 13 5 5 9 130 17 Future Volume (vph) 139 235 29 5 80 154 13 5 5 9 130 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1697 3433 1863 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1697 3433 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 151 255 32 5 87 167 14 5 5 10 141 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 0 138 040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 151 255 9 5 87 29 14 6 0 0 151 18 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 19.1 19.1 0.7 11.6 11.6 19.6 19.6 8.4 8.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 19.1 19.1 0.7 11.6 11.6 19.6 19.6 8.4 8.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 427 540 449 18 623 274 1022 505 438 237 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.14 0.00 0.02 c0.00 0.00 c0.04 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.47 0.02 0.28 0.14 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 26.4 19.2 16.7 32.3 22.9 22.8 16.3 16.3 26.2 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 0.0 8.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 26.9 19.9 16.7 40.6 23.0 22.9 16.3 16.3 26.7 25.4 Level of Service C B B D C C B B C C Approach Delay (s) 22.0 23.3 16.3 26.1 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 102 Future Volume (vph) 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1562 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1562 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 97 Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.4 Effective Green, g (s) 8.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 199 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Delay (s) 25.4 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 705 0 886 0 0 1727 266 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 705 0 886 0 0 1727 266 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 521 0 766 0 963 0 0 1877 289 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000022000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 521 0 744 0 963 0 0 1877 289 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 56.0 50.5 87.5 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 56.0 50.5 87.5 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.47 0.42 0.73 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 672 1405 2139 3707 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.14 0.19 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.53 0.45 0.51 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 22.7 24.8 7.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.40 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 Delay (s) 51.3 23.0 28.7 3.2 0.2 Level of Service D C C A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 34.5 28.7 2.8 Approach LOS A C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 200 152 0 1545 1317 0 Future Volume (vph) 200 152 0 1545 1317 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3379 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3379 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 217 165 0 1679 1432 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 18 56 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 245 63 0 1679 1432 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 8 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 14.0 97.0 97.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 14.0 97.0 97.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.81 0.81 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 394 168 4110 4110 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.33 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.38 0.41 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 50.5 49.0 3.3 3.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.28 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 1.4 0.3 0.2 Delay (s) 53.5 50.4 2.4 1.0 Level of Service D D A A Approach Delay (s) 52.6 2.4 1.0 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 223 451 235 178 209 130 1 244 1055 128 8 Future Volume (vph) 1 223 451 235 178 209 130 1 244 1055 128 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3274 3433 5085 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3274 3433 5085 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 242 490 255 193 227 141 1 265 1147 139 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 107 0 91 0000740 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 243 490 148 193 277 0 0 266 1147 65 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 30 1 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 25.7 25.7 11.0 16.0 13.8 54.7 54.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 25.7 25.7 11.0 16.0 13.8 54.7 54.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 757 326 314 436 394 2317 712 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.14 0.06 0.08 c0.08 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.65 0.45 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.50 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 43.0 41.0 52.5 49.2 50.9 22.9 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.4 1.9 1.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 0.8 0.3 Delay (s) 61.1 44.9 42.1 56.0 52.3 55.5 23.7 18.8 Level of Service E D D E D E C B Approach Delay (s) 48.2 53.5 28.7 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 166 944 104 Future Volume (vph) 166 944 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 1026 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 1026 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 51.5 51.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 51.5 51.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 303 2182 667 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.47 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 24.5 20.2 Progression Factor 0.91 0.90 0.87 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.7 0.2 Delay (s) 51.7 22.7 17.8 Level of Service D C B Approach Delay (s) 26.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 87 99 67 440 145 417 90 205 1673 327 22 297 Future Volume (vph) 87 99 67 440 145 417 90 205 1673 327 22 297 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3316 1681 1726 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3316 1681 1726 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 108 73 478 158 453 98 223 1818 355 24 323 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 275 0 0 0 140 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 251 0 315 321 178 0 321 1818 215 0 347 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 21 8 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 31.1 31.1 31.1 29.7 54.7 54.7 30.4 Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 31.1 31.1 31.1 29.7 54.7 54.7 30.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 349 348 357 307 350 1854 563 358 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.19 0.19 0.18 c0.36 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.91 0.90 0.58 0.92 0.98 0.38 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 58.0 57.9 53.6 58.9 47.1 35.2 59.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.29 2.02 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 25.8 24.2 2.6 20.8 13.1 1.3 38.9 Delay (s) 71.9 83.8 82.1 56.2 77.9 74.0 72.3 98.3 Level of Service E F F E E E E F Approach Delay (s) 71.9 71.8 74.3 Approach LOS E E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 67.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1090 95 Future Volume (vph) 1090 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5016 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5016 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1185 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1282 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 55.4 Effective Green, g (s) 55.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1852 v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 Delay (s) 42.2 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 54.1 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 6 613 65 322 758 72 6 141 40 398 16 7 Future Volume (vph) 6 613 65 322 758 72 6 141 40 398 16 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3484 1770 3483 1770 1863 1583 1706 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3484 1770 3483 1354 1863 1583 1579 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 666 71 350 824 78 7 153 43 433 17 8 RTOR Reduction (vph)080060000290017 Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 729 0 350 896 0 0 160 43 143 0 29 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 25.2 18.0 42.4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 25.2 18.0 42.4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.35 0.25 0.59 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 19 1224 444 2059 283 389 331 330 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.21 c0.20 0.26 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.09 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.60 0.79 0.44 0.57 0.11 0.43 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 19.1 25.1 8.1 25.4 22.9 24.6 22.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.7 0.8 9.0 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 46.9 19.9 34.1 8.2 28.0 23.1 25.5 23.0 Level of Service D B C A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 20.1 15.4 26.0 23.0 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 19 Future Volume (vph) 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 72 2194 100 3 87 1530 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 72 2194 100 3 87 1530 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 78 2385 109 0 95 1663 Pedestrians 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 929 pX, platoon unblocked 0.72 0.63 0.00 0.63 vC, conflicting volume 3193 858 0 2503 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 942 0 0 1319 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 0.0 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 0.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 88 0 71 cM capacity (veh/h) 132 675 0 324 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 78 954 954 586 95 554 554 554 Volume Left 000095000 Volume Right 78 0 0 109 0000 cSH 675 1700 1700 1700 324 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.56 0.56 0.34 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 11.0 0.0 1.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 81 104 20 54 462 407 36 Future Volume (vph) 81 104 20 54 462 407 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3490 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3490 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 113 22 59 502 442 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 92 0 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 21 0 81 502 471 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 5.5 2.6 15.2 8.1 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 5.5 2.6 15.2 8.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.51 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 327 289 154 1811 951 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.05 0.14 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.07 0.53 0.28 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 10.0 13.0 4.1 9.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.4 Delay (s) 10.8 10.1 16.2 4.2 9.5 Level of Service B B B A A Approach Delay (s) 10.4 5.9 9.5 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 29.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 378 277 165 438 391 181 1 286 1781 341 9 119 Future Volume (vph) 378 277 165 438 391 181 1 286 1781 341 9 119 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 411 301 179 476 425 197 1 311 1936 371 10 129 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 90 0 0 94 0 0 0 128 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 411 301 89 476 425 103 0 312 1936 243 0 139 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.4 26.4 26.4 29.0 29.0 29.0 20.7 67.3 67.3 9.3 Effective Green, g (s) 26.4 26.4 26.4 29.0 29.0 29.0 20.7 67.3 67.3 9.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.45 0.45 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 604 622 268 663 684 306 473 2281 690 212 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.09 c0.14 0.12 0.09 c0.38 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.06 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.48 0.33 0.72 0.62 0.34 0.66 0.85 0.35 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 57.9 55.7 54.1 56.7 55.5 52.2 61.3 36.8 27.1 68.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.58 0.23 0.95 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.6 0.7 3.7 1.8 0.7 2.7 3.4 1.1 6.7 Delay (s) 61.0 56.3 54.8 60.4 57.2 52.8 47.3 24.8 7.4 71.9 Level of Service E E D E E D D C A E Approach Delay (s) 58.2 57.8 25.0 Approach LOS E E C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1125 313 Future Volume (vph) 1125 313 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1223 340 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 167 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1223 173 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.9 55.9 Effective Green, g (s) 55.9 55.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1895 589 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 33.1 Progression Factor 1.26 2.51 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 1.2 Delay (s) 50.7 84.5 Level of Service D F Approach Delay (s) 59.2 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 237 272 34 8 244 316 172 36 40 30 244 Future Volume (vph) 2 237 272 34 8 244 316 172 36 40 30 244 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1533 1770 3539 1553 3433 1681 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1533 1770 3539 1553 3433 1681 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 258 296 37 9 265 343 187 39 43 33 265 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 25 0 0 272 0 29 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 260 296 12 9 265 71 187 53 0 0 298 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 11 23 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Split Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 26.3 26.3 0.7 16.1 16.1 19.7 19.7 13.3 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 26.3 26.3 0.7 16.1 16.1 19.7 19.7 13.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 479 628 516 15 730 320 867 424 585 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.16 0.01 0.07 c0.05 0.03 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.47 0.02 0.60 0.36 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 31.2 20.4 17.3 38.5 26.6 25.7 23.0 22.5 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.6 0.0 51.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 Delay (s) 32.5 20.9 17.3 89.6 26.9 26.1 23.6 23.1 30.1 Level of Service C C B F CCCC C Approach Delay (s) 25.8 27.3 23.5 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 32 261 Future Volume (vph) 32 261 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1546 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 284 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 236 Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 317 263 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 27.3 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 27.5 28.0 Level of Service C C Approach Delay (s) 29.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 496 0 1362 0 1535 0 0 1674 356 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 496 0 1362 0 1535 0 0 1674 356 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 539 0 1480 0 1668 0 0 1820 387 RTOR Reduction (vph)000005000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 539 0 1475 0 1668 0 0 1820 387 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)14 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 80.9 55.6 114.7 150.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 80.9 55.6 114.7 150.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.54 0.37 0.76 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 601 1586 1884 3888 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.34 c0.33 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.93 0.89 0.47 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 60.5 31.9 44.2 6.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.38 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.0 10.0 5.5 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 76.5 41.9 50.6 2.8 0.3 Level of Service E D D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 51.1 50.6 2.3 Approach LOS A D D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 323 408 0 2027 1459 0 Future Volume (vph) 323 408 0 2027 1459 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3316 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3316 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 351 443 0 2203 1586 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 30 30 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 511 223 0 2203 1586 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 7 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.3 30.3 110.7 110.7 Effective Green, g (s) 30.3 30.3 110.7 110.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 669 291 3752 3752 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.43 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.77 0.59 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 56.5 56.5 9.1 7.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.39 Incremental Delay, d2 5.2 11.5 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 61.7 68.0 6.3 3.2 Level of Service E E A A Approach Delay (s) 63.7 6.3 3.2 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 268 250 288 428 231 9 333 1313 123 41 242 Future Volume (vph) 177 268 250 288 428 231 9 333 1313 123 41 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 192 291 272 313 465 251 10 362 1427 134 45 263 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 48 00004600 Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 291 141 313 668 0 0 372 1427 88 0 308 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 24 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.3 36.7 36.7 18.3 34.7 21.2 59.8 59.8 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 20.3 36.7 36.7 18.3 34.7 21.2 59.8 59.8 17.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.23 0.14 0.40 0.40 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 865 369 418 762 485 2027 631 393 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.08 0.09 c0.20 c0.11 c0.28 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.34 0.38 0.75 0.88 0.77 0.70 0.14 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 46.6 47.2 63.6 55.6 62.0 37.7 28.7 64.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 Incremental Delay, d2 17.5 0.2 0.7 7.2 11.0 7.1 2.1 0.5 7.4 Delay (s) 80.4 46.9 47.9 70.8 66.6 69.2 39.8 29.2 48.3 Level of Service F D D E E E D C D Approach Delay (s) 55.8 67.9 44.7 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1256 153 Future Volume (vph) 1256 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1365 166 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 82 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1365 84 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.8 55.8 Effective Green, g (s) 55.8 55.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1891 566 v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 40.4 31.3 Progression Factor 0.92 1.43 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.4 Delay (s) 39.0 45.2 Level of Service D D Approach Delay (s) 41.1 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 59 112 66 286 72 262 27 68 666 366 20 460 Future Volume (vph) 59 112 66 286 72 262 27 68 666 366 20 460 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3316 1681 1718 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3316 1681 1718 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 122 72 311 78 285 29 74 724 398 22 500 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 0 242 0 0 0 286 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 222 0 193 196 43 0 103 724 112 0 522 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 6 5 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 11.4 33.9 33.9 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 11.4 33.9 33.9 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 256 261 235 168 1436 439 538 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.11 0.11 c0.06 0.14 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.75 0.75 0.18 0.61 0.50 0.26 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 48.7 48.7 44.3 52.2 36.0 33.3 41.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.84 2.14 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 11.9 11.5 0.4 6.3 1.2 1.4 31.2 Delay (s) 53.7 60.6 60.2 44.7 38.8 31.6 72.6 72.4 Level of Service D E E D D C E E Approach Delay (s) 53.7 53.8 45.5 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1262 41 Future Volume (vph) 1262 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5058 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5058 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1372 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1414 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 59.0 Effective Green, g (s) 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2486 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 Delay (s) 22.5 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 35.9 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 842 69 151 511 42 4 42 7 189 25 22 Future Volume (vph) 2 842 69 151 511 42 4 42 7 189 25 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3491 1770 1863 1583 1757 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.87 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3491 1326 1863 1583 1565 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 915 75 164 555 46 4 46 8 205 27 24 RTOR Reduction (vph)060050000156015 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 984 0 164 596 0 0 50 8 49 0 54 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 26.3 7.7 33.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 26.3 7.7 33.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.47 0.14 0.60 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 25 1659 246 2092 189 265 225 223 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.28 c0.09 0.17 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.59 0.67 0.28 0.26 0.03 0.22 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 26.9 10.6 22.6 5.4 21.2 20.5 21.0 21.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.6 6.7 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.6 Delay (s) 28.3 11.2 29.3 5.4 21.9 20.5 21.5 21.6 Level of Service C B C A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 11.2 10.6 21.6 21.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 17 Future Volume (vph) 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 34 1063 61 109 1506 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 34 1063 61 109 1506 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 37 1155 66 118 1637 Pedestrians 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 929 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.94 0.94 vC, conflicting volume 1974 422 1225 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1101 177 1028 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 81 cM capacity (veh/h) 143 785 631 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 37 462 462 297 118 546 546 546 Volume Left 0000118000 Volume Right 37 0 0 66 0000 cSH 785 1700 1700 1700 631 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.19 0.32 0.32 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft)400017000 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 49 99 4 33 236 284 19 Future Volume (vph) 49 99 4 33 236 284 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3500 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3500 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 108 4 36 257 309 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 92 00080 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 16 0 40 257 322 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.1 5.1 6.3 19.4 8.6 Effective Green, g (s) 5.1 5.1 6.3 19.4 8.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.58 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 269 237 332 2049 898 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.02 c0.07 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 12.4 12.2 11.3 3.2 10.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 12.8 12.3 11.5 3.2 10.4 Level of Service B B B A B Approach Delay (s) 12.4 4.3 10.4 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 33.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 240 395 259 229 75 23 122 907 357 7 63 1229 Future Volume (vph) 240 395 259 229 75 23 122 907 357 7 63 1229 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 261 429 282 249 82 25 133 986 388 8 68 1336 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 0 22 0 0 205 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 429 174 249 82 3 133 986 183 0 76 1336 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 7 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 14.1 14.1 14.1 8.3 56.6 56.6 6.8 55.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.5 24.5 24.5 14.1 14.1 14.1 8.3 56.6 56.6 6.8 55.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 700 722 313 403 415 186 237 2398 732 194 2334 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.12 c0.07 0.02 c0.04 0.19 0.02 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.00 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.59 0.56 0.62 0.20 0.02 0.56 0.41 0.25 0.39 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 43.2 42.9 50.4 47.8 46.8 54.1 20.8 19.0 54.6 23.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.57 1.33 1.02 1.54 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.3 2.1 2.8 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.0 Delay (s) 41.5 44.6 45.0 53.2 48.1 46.8 37.7 12.3 25.9 56.9 37.7 Level of Service DDDDDDDBC ED Approach Delay (s) 43.9 51.6 18.1 41.8 Approach LOS D D B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 161 Future Volume (vph) 161 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 175 RTOR Reduction (vph) 83 Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.1 Effective Green, g (s) 55.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 726 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 Progression Factor 3.54 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 66.2 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 151 235 29 5 80 156 13 5 5 9 136 17 Future Volume (vph) 151 235 29 5 80 156 13 5 5 9 136 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1696 3433 1863 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1696 3433 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 164 255 32 5 87 170 14 5 5 10 148 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 23 0 0 141 040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 164 255 9 5 87 29 14 6 0 0 158 18 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 19.3 19.3 0.7 11.5 11.5 19.7 19.7 8.8 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 19.3 19.3 0.7 11.5 11.5 19.7 19.7 8.8 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 438 540 449 18 612 269 1016 502 454 246 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.14 0.00 0.02 c0.00 0.00 c0.05 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.47 0.02 0.28 0.14 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 19.4 16.9 32.6 23.3 23.2 16.5 16.5 26.2 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.7 0.0 8.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 27.1 20.1 16.9 40.9 23.4 23.4 16.6 16.6 26.7 25.4 Level of Service C C B D C C B B C C Approach Delay (s) 22.4 23.7 16.6 26.1 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.5 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 193 Future Volume (vph) 193 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1562 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1562 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 210 RTOR Reduction (vph) 182 Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 206 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 25.8 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 717 0 898 0 0 1781 303 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 479 0 717 0 898 0 0 1781 303 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 521 0 779 0 976 0 0 1936 329 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000021000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 521 0 758 0 976 0 0 1936 329 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 56.0 50.5 87.5 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 56.0 50.5 87.5 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.47 0.42 0.73 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 672 1405 2139 3707 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.15 0.19 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.54 0.46 0.52 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 22.8 24.9 7.1 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.37 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 Delay (s) 51.3 23.2 28.7 3.0 0.2 Level of Service D C C A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 34.5 28.7 2.6 Approach LOS A C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 209 152 0 1548 1329 0 Future Volume (vph) 209 152 0 1548 1329 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3385 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3385 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 227 165 0 1683 1445 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 54 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 254 68 0 1683 1445 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 8 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.3 14.3 96.7 96.7 Effective Green, g (s) 14.3 14.3 96.7 96.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.81 0.81 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 171 4097 4097 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.33 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.40 0.41 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 50.3 48.9 3.4 3.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.27 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 1.5 0.3 0.2 Delay (s) 53.5 50.4 2.4 1.0 Level of Service D D A A Approach Delay (s) 52.6 2.4 1.0 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 223 451 235 178 209 130 1 244 1058 128 8 Future Volume (vph) 1 223 451 235 178 209 130 1 244 1058 128 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3274 3433 5085 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3274 3433 5085 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 242 490 255 193 227 141 1 265 1150 139 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 107 0 91 0000740 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 243 490 148 193 277 0 0 266 1150 65 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 30 1 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 25.7 25.7 11.0 16.0 13.8 54.7 54.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 25.7 25.7 11.0 16.0 13.8 54.7 54.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 757 326 314 436 394 2317 712 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.14 0.06 0.08 c0.08 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.65 0.45 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.50 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 43.0 41.0 52.5 49.2 50.9 23.0 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.4 1.9 1.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 0.8 0.3 Delay (s) 61.1 44.9 42.1 56.0 52.3 55.5 23.7 18.8 Level of Service E D D E D E C B Approach Delay (s) 48.2 53.5 28.7 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 166 956 104 Future Volume (vph) 166 956 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 1039 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 1039 48 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 51.5 51.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 51.5 51.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 303 2182 667 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.48 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 24.6 20.2 Progression Factor 0.91 0.88 0.75 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.7 0.2 Delay (s) 51.6 22.3 15.4 Level of Service D C B Approach Delay (s) 25.9 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 87 99 67 440 145 421 90 205 1676 327 22 304 Future Volume (vph) 87 99 67 440 145 421 90 205 1676 327 22 304 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3316 1681 1726 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3316 1681 1726 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 108 73 478 158 458 98 223 1822 355 24 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 275 0 0 0 141 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 251 0 315 321 183 0 321 1822 214 0 354 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 21 8 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 31.1 31.1 31.1 29.7 54.1 54.1 31.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 31.1 31.1 31.1 29.7 54.1 54.1 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 349 348 357 307 350 1833 557 365 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.19 0.19 0.18 c0.36 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.91 0.90 0.60 0.92 0.99 0.38 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 58.0 57.9 53.8 58.9 47.8 35.6 59.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.33 2.07 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.9 25.8 24.2 3.1 20.5 15.6 1.3 38.6 Delay (s) 71.9 83.8 82.1 56.9 76.7 79.0 74.9 97.6 Level of Service E F F E E E E F Approach Delay (s) 71.9 72.0 78.1 Approach LOS E E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 69.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.1% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1095 95 Future Volume (vph) 1095 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5016 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5016 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1190 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1287 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 55.4 Effective Green, g (s) 55.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1852 v/s Ratio Prot 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 Delay (s) 42.3 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 54.2 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 6 613 72 334 758 72 6 145 40 404 16 7 Future Volume (vph) 6 613 72 334 758 72 6 145 40 404 16 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3479 1770 3482 1770 1863 1583 1706 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3479 1770 3482 1354 1863 1583 1580 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 666 78 363 824 78 7 158 43 439 17 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0060000289017 Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 734 0 363 896 0 0 165 43 150 0 29 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 25.5 18.1 42.8 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 25.5 18.1 42.8 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.35 0.25 0.59 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 19 1221 441 2052 289 397 337 337 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.21 c0.21 0.26 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.09 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.60 0.82 0.44 0.57 0.11 0.45 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 35.6 19.4 25.7 8.2 25.6 23.0 24.8 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.7 0.8 11.8 0.1 2.7 0.1 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 47.3 20.2 37.5 8.4 28.3 23.1 25.8 23.0 Level of Service D C D A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 20.5 16.7 26.2 23.0 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 19 Future Volume (vph) 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 75 2194 145 3 92 1530 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 75 2194 145 3 92 1530 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 82 2385 158 0 100 1663 Pedestrians 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 928 pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 0.61 0.00 0.61 vC, conflicting volume 3227 883 0 2552 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 890 0 0 1302 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 0.0 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 0.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 87 0 69 cM capacity (veh/h) 135 655 0 319 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 82 954 954 635 100 554 554 554 Volume Left 0000100000 Volume Right 82 0 0 158 0000 cSH 655 1700 1700 1700 319 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.56 0.56 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 11.3 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 126 109 20 59 508 453 39 Future Volume (vph) 126 109 20 59 508 453 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3491 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3491 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 137 118 22 64 552 492 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 98 00080 Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 20 0 86 552 526 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.4 6.4 3.8 21.5 13.2 Effective Green, g (s) 6.4 6.4 3.8 21.5 13.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.58 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 306 270 182 2062 1248 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.05 0.16 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.08 0.47 0.27 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 13.7 12.8 15.6 3.8 9.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.2 Delay (s) 14.7 12.9 17.5 3.9 9.2 Level of Service B B B A A Approach Delay (s) 13.9 5.7 9.2 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.9 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 378 277 165 1 486 391 181 1 286 1826 386 9 Future Volume (vph) 378 277 165 1 486 391 181 1 286 1826 386 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 411 301 179 1 528 425 197 1 311 1985 420 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 90 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 146 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 411 301 89 0 529 425 105 0 312 1985 274 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.4 26.4 26.4 32.2 32.2 32.2 20.7 64.6 64.6 Effective Green, g (s) 26.4 26.4 26.4 32.2 32.2 32.2 20.7 64.6 64.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 604 622 268 736 759 339 473 2189 662 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.09 c0.15 0.12 0.09 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.48 0.33 0.72 0.56 0.31 0.66 0.91 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 57.9 55.7 54.1 54.7 52.6 49.6 61.3 39.9 29.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.60 0.27 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 0.6 0.7 3.4 0.9 0.5 2.6 5.5 1.5 Delay (s) 61.0 56.3 54.8 58.1 53.5 50.1 47.6 29.6 9.5 Level of Service E E D E D D D C A Approach Delay (s) 58.2 55.0 28.5 Approach LOS E E C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 119 1125 313 Future Volume (vph) 119 1125 313 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 129 1223 340 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 173 Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 1223 167 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 52.7 52.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 52.7 52.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 201 1786 556 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.68 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 69.3 41.6 35.3 Progression Factor 0.94 1.26 2.54 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 2.0 1.3 Delay (s) 74.1 54.5 90.8 Level of Service E D F Approach Delay (s) 63.4 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 282 272 34 1 8 244 322 172 36 40 30 Future Volume (vph) 2 282 272 34 1 8 244 322 172 36 40 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1532 1770 3539 1553 3433 1681 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1532 1770 3539 1553 3433 1681 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 307 296 37 1 9 265 350 187 39 43 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 279 0 29 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 309 296 13 0 10 265 71 187 53 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 11 23 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 2 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 27.3 27.3 0.7 16.2 16.2 19.7 19.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 27.3 27.3 0.7 16.2 16.2 19.7 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 510 640 526 15 722 316 851 417 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.16 0.01 0.07 c0.05 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.46 0.02 0.67 0.37 0.23 0.22 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 31.6 20.3 17.2 39.2 27.2 26.4 23.7 23.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.5 0.0 75.9 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 Delay (s) 33.7 20.9 17.3 115.1 27.5 26.7 24.3 23.8 Level of Service C C B F CCCC Approach Delay (s) 26.8 28.5 24.2 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.4 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 247 32 309 Future Volume (vph) 247 32 309 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1546 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1546 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 268 35 336 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 278 Lane Group Flow (vph) 301 35 58 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16 Turn Type Split NA Perm Protected Phases 6 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 13.7 13.7 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 13.7 13.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 592 321 266 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.11 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 29.8 27.7 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.2 0.4 Delay (s) 30.5 27.9 28.7 Level of Service C C C Approach Delay (s) 29.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 496 0 1404 0 1583 0 0 1703 375 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 496 0 1404 0 1583 0 0 1703 375 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 539 0 1526 0 1721 0 0 1851 408 RTOR Reduction (vph)000005000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 539 0 1521 0 1721 0 0 1851 408 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)14 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 80.9 55.6 114.7 150.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 80.9 55.6 114.7 150.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.54 0.37 0.76 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 601 1586 1884 3888 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.35 c0.34 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.96 0.91 0.48 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 60.5 33.0 44.9 6.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.36 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.0 13.9 6.9 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 76.5 46.9 52.3 2.7 0.3 Level of Service E D D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 54.6 52.3 2.3 Approach LOS A D D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 359 408 0 2039 1466 0 Future Volume (vph) 359 408 0 2039 1466 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3330 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3330 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 390 443 0 2216 1593 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 28 28 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 539 238 0 2216 1593 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 7 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 31.8 31.8 109.2 109.2 Effective Green, g (s) 31.8 31.8 109.2 109.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.73 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 705 305 3701 3701 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.44 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.78 0.60 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 55.6 55.8 9.8 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.39 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 11.9 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 60.5 67.7 6.8 3.4 Level of Service E E A A Approach Delay (s) 62.8 6.8 3.4 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 268 250 288 428 231 9 333 1325 123 41 242 Future Volume (vph) 177 268 250 288 428 231 9 333 1325 123 41 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 192 291 272 313 465 251 10 362 1440 134 45 263 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 131 0 48 00004600 Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 291 141 313 668 0 0 372 1440 88 0 308 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 24 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.3 36.7 36.7 18.3 34.7 21.2 59.8 59.8 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 20.3 36.7 36.7 18.3 34.7 21.2 59.8 59.8 17.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.23 0.14 0.40 0.40 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 865 369 418 762 485 2027 631 393 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.08 0.09 c0.20 c0.11 c0.28 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.34 0.38 0.75 0.88 0.77 0.71 0.14 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 62.9 46.6 47.2 63.6 55.6 62.0 37.8 28.7 64.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 Incremental Delay, d2 17.5 0.2 0.7 7.2 11.0 7.1 2.1 0.5 7.3 Delay (s) 80.4 46.9 47.9 70.8 66.6 69.2 40.0 29.2 48.7 Level of Service F D D E E E D C D Approach Delay (s) 55.8 67.9 44.8 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Background+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1263 153 Future Volume (vph) 1263 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1373 166 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 82 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1373 84 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.8 55.8 Effective Green, g (s) 55.8 55.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1891 566 v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 40.5 31.3 Progression Factor 0.92 1.42 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.4 Delay (s) 39.3 45.0 Level of Service D D Approach Delay (s) 41.3 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 81 154 91 385 98 341 37 94 895 505 28 625 Future Volume (vph) 81 154 91 385 98 341 37 94 895 505 28 625 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3315 1681 1718 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3315 1681 1718 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 167 99 418 107 371 40 102 973 549 30 679 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 35 0 0 0 309 0 0 0 265 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 319 0 259 266 62 0 142 973 284 0 709 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 6 5 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 20.1 20.1 20.1 12.7 29.5 29.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 20.1 20.1 20.1 12.7 29.5 29.5 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 439 281 287 258 187 1250 382 538 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.15 c0.15 0.08 c0.19 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.92 0.93 0.24 0.76 0.78 0.74 1.32 Uniform Delay, d1 50.0 49.2 49.2 43.3 52.2 42.2 41.8 41.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.83 1.13 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 33.6 34.1 0.5 14.8 4.4 11.3 155.8 Delay (s) 55.9 82.8 83.3 43.8 47.9 39.5 58.6 197.5 Level of Service E F F D D D E F Approach Delay (s) 55.9 66.8 46.5 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 65.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.0% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1728 57 Future Volume (vph) 1728 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5058 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5058 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1878 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1937 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 53.3 Effective Green, g (s) 53.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2246 v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 Delay (s) 34.7 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 78.3 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 3 1160 92 203 704 58 6 48 10 241 34 30 Future Volume (vph) 3 1160 92 203 704 58 6 48 10 241 34 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3496 1770 3491 1770 1863 1583 1756 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.88 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3496 1770 3491 1403 1863 1583 1574 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1261 100 221 765 63 7 52 11 262 37 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)060050000126019 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1355 0 221 823 0 0 59 11 136 0 76 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 36.6 7.6 43.3 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 36.6 7.6 43.3 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.53 0.11 0.63 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 23 1867 196 2206 221 293 249 248 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.39 c0.12 0.24 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.09 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.73 1.13 0.37 0.27 0.04 0.54 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 33.4 12.1 30.4 6.1 25.4 24.4 26.6 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 1.4 102.7 0.1 0.7 0.1 2.4 0.7 Delay (s) 36.0 13.6 133.2 6.2 26.0 24.5 29.0 26.2 Level of Service D B F A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 13.6 32.9 28.3 26.2 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 23 Future Volume (vph) 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 40 1460 68 149 2067 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 40 1460 68 149 2067 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 43 1587 74 162 2247 Pedestrians 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 930 pX, platoon unblocked 0.73 0.88 0.88 vC, conflicting volume 2701 570 1665 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 902 18 1267 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 66 cM capacity (veh/h) 133 922 475 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 43 635 635 391 162 749 749 749 Volume Left 0000162000 Volume Right 43 0 0 74 0000 cSH 922 1700 1700 1700 475 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.23 0.34 0.44 0.44 0.44 Queue Length 95th (ft)400037000 Control Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 1.1 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 50 123 6 43 308 270 21 Future Volume (vph) 50 123 6 43 308 270 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1562 1770 3539 3495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 134 7 47 335 293 23 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 114 00090 Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 20 0 54 335 307 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.1 5.1 6.3 19.4 8.6 Effective Green, g (s) 5.1 5.1 6.3 19.4 8.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.58 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 269 237 332 2049 897 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.03 c0.09 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 12.4 12.2 11.4 3.3 10.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 12.8 12.4 11.6 3.3 10.4 Level of Service B B B A B Approach Delay (s) 12.5 4.5 10.4 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 33.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 331 545 357 190 103 32 168 1228 476 10 87 1685 Future Volume (vph) 331 545 357 190 103 32 168 1228 476 10 87 1685 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 360 592 388 207 112 35 183 1335 517 11 95 1832 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 98 0 0 31 0 0 222 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 360 592 290 207 112 4 183 1335 295 0 106 1832 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 7 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.1 33.1 33.1 12.7 12.7 12.7 7.5 47.9 47.9 8.3 48.7 Effective Green, g (s) 33.1 33.1 33.1 12.7 12.7 12.7 7.5 47.9 47.9 8.3 48.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 946 976 423 363 374 167 214 2029 619 237 2063 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.17 c0.06 0.03 0.05 c0.26 0.03 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.00 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.61 0.68 0.57 0.30 0.02 0.86 0.66 0.48 0.45 0.89 Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 37.8 38.8 51.1 49.5 48.1 55.7 29.4 26.8 53.6 33.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.85 1.43 0.98 1.48 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.1 4.5 2.2 0.5 0.1 21.5 1.3 2.0 1.2 5.5 Delay (s) 35.4 38.9 43.3 53.2 50.0 48.1 67.3 26.3 40.2 53.8 54.4 Level of Service DDDDDDECD DD Approach Delay (s) 39.2 51.7 33.5 54.2 Approach LOS D D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 222 Future Volume (vph) 222 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 241 RTOR Reduction (vph) 92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 149 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 48.7 Effective Green, g (s) 48.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 642 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 23.4 Progression Factor 2.22 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 Delay (s) 52.6 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 192 324 40 7 110 212 18 6 7 12 179 22 Future Volume (vph) 192 324 40 7 110 212 18 6 7 12 179 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1685 3433 1863 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1685 3433 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 209 352 43 8 120 230 20 7 8 13 195 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 30 0 0 187 060000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 209 352 13 8 120 43 20 9 0 0 208 24 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.5 21.9 21.9 0.6 13.0 13.0 19.8 19.8 10.0 10.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 21.9 21.9 0.6 13.0 13.0 19.8 19.8 10.0 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 463 580 482 15 654 287 966 474 488 265 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.19 0.00 0.03 c0.01 0.01 c0.06 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.61 0.03 0.53 0.18 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.43 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 20.5 16.8 34.7 24.2 24.0 18.2 18.2 27.5 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.8 0.0 31.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 28.7 22.3 16.8 66.6 24.3 24.2 18.3 18.3 28.1 26.3 Level of Service C C B E C C B B C C Approach Delay (s) 24.2 25.2 18.3 27.3 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 141 Future Volume (vph) 141 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1562 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1562 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 153 RTOR Reduction (vph) 131 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 222 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Delay (s) 26.4 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 660 0 971 0 1217 0 0 2373 365 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 660 0 971 0 1217 0 0 2373 365 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 717 0 1055 0 1323 0 0 2579 397 RTOR Reduction (vph)000007000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 717 0 1048 0 1323 0 0 2579 397 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 29.4 61.9 44.6 81.6 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 29.4 61.9 44.6 81.6 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.52 0.37 0.68 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 841 1542 1889 3457 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.18 0.26 c0.51 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.68 0.70 0.75 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 43.2 21.7 32.0 12.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.28 0.33 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.4 1.2 1.8 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 51.6 22.9 42.8 4.4 0.1 Level of Service D C D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 34.5 42.8 3.8 Approach LOS A C D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 275 210 0 2126 1809 0 Future Volume (vph) 275 210 0 2126 1809 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3379 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3379 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 299 228 0 2311 1966 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 18 18 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 345 146 0 2311 1966 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 8 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.4 18.4 92.6 92.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.4 18.4 92.6 92.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.77 0.77 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 518 220 3923 3923 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.45 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.66 0.59 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 47.9 47.9 5.7 5.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.37 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 7.4 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 51.1 55.3 3.6 2.2 Level of Service D E A A Approach Delay (s) 52.4 3.6 2.2 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 307 622 324 245 288 179 1 336 1451 176 11 Future Volume (vph) 1 307 622 324 245 288 179 1 336 1451 176 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3273 3433 5085 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3273 3433 5085 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 334 676 352 266 313 195 1 365 1577 191 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 98 0 88 0000850 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 335 676 254 266 420 0 0 366 1577 106 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 30 1 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 33.8 33.8 11.6 21.3 14.5 45.3 45.3 Effective Green, g (s) 24.1 33.8 33.8 11.6 21.3 14.5 45.3 45.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 355 996 429 331 580 414 1919 590 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.19 0.08 0.13 c0.11 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.68 0.59 0.80 0.72 0.88 0.82 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 47.3 38.3 37.2 53.1 46.6 51.9 33.7 24.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.2 1.9 2.2 13.2 4.5 19.5 4.1 0.7 Delay (s) 80.5 40.1 39.4 66.3 51.0 71.4 37.8 25.6 Level of Service F D D E D E D C Approach Delay (s) 49.9 56.3 42.5 Approach LOS D E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 229 1295 143 Future Volume (vph) 229 1295 143 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 249 1408 155 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 1408 65 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 42.1 42.1 Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 323 1783 545 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.79 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 53.3 35.0 26.4 Progression Factor 0.89 0.87 1.30 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 2.9 0.4 Delay (s) 58.6 33.3 34.7 Level of Service E C C Approach Delay (s) 37.0 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 120 135 92 593 198 559 124 282 2283 451 30 393 Future Volume (vph) 120 135 92 593 198 559 124 282 2283 451 30 393 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3316 1681 1726 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3316 1681 1726 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 130 147 100 645 215 608 135 307 2482 490 33 427 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 142 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 352 0 426 434 397 0 442 2482 348 0 460 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 21 8 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.8 29.7 29.7 29.7 25.5 58.0 58.0 26.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.8 29.7 29.7 29.7 25.5 58.0 58.0 26.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.39 0.39 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 393 332 341 293 300 1966 597 312 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.25 0.25 0.25 c0.49 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.90 1.28 1.27 1.36 1.47 1.26 0.58 1.47 Uniform Delay, d1 65.2 60.1 60.1 60.1 62.2 46.0 36.4 61.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.44 0.42 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.2 148.5 143.8 180.6 214.7 118.5 0.4 230.1 Delay (s) 87.3 208.6 203.9 240.7 286.3 138.9 15.8 291.8 Level of Service F F F F F F B F Approach Delay (s) 87.3 220.5 140.3 Approach LOS F F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 141.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 130.0% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1478 131 Future Volume (vph) 1478 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5015 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5015 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1607 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1742 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 59.0 Effective Green, g (s) 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1972 v/s Ratio Prot 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.88 Uniform Delay, d1 42.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.2 Delay (s) 48.5 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 99.2 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 8 844 90 442 1043 99 8 194 55 547 22 10 Future Volume (vph) 8 844 90 442 1043 99 8 194 55 547 22 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3484 1770 3481 1770 1863 1583 1708 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3484 1770 3481 1438 1863 1583 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 917 98 480 1134 108 9 211 60 595 24 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)080060000238021 Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 1007 0 480 1236 0 0 220 60 357 0 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 34.3 18.0 51.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 34.3 18.0 51.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.38 0.20 0.58 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 17 1339 357 2005 377 488 415 411 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.29 c0.27 0.35 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.23 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.75 1.34 0.62 0.58 0.12 0.86 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 43.9 23.8 35.6 12.4 28.7 25.1 31.3 24.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 26.7 2.4 172.7 0.6 2.3 0.1 16.1 0.1 Delay (s) 70.6 26.2 208.3 13.0 31.0 25.2 47.4 25.1 Level of Service E C F B C C D C Approach Delay (s) 26.6 67.4 41.8 25.1 Approach LOS C E D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 26 Future Volume (vph) 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 99 3010 138 7 120 2096 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 99 3010 138 7 120 2096 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 108 3272 150 0 130 2278 Pedestrians 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 930 pX, platoon unblocked 0.54 0.39 0.00 0.39 vC, conflicting volume 4375 1175 0 3431 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 561 0 0 1787 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 0.0 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 0.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 75 0 3 cM capacity (veh/h) 7 424 0 134 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 108 1309 1309 804 130 759 759 759 Volume Left 0000130000 Volume Right 108 0 0 150 0000 cSH 424 1700 1700 1700 134 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.77 0.77 0.47 0.97 0.45 0.45 0.45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 25 0 0 0 169 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 133.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C F Approach Delay (s) 16.4 0.0 7.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 112 143 28 74 635 560 50 Future Volume (vph) 112 143 28 74 635 560 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3489 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3489 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 122 155 30 80 690 609 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 130 00090 Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 25 0 110 690 654 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 6.7 5.9 25.1 14.7 Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 6.7 5.9 25.1 14.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.62 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 290 256 255 2177 1257 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.06 0.19 c0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.10 0.43 0.32 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 15.3 14.5 15.9 3.8 10.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.4 Delay (s) 16.3 14.7 17.1 3.8 10.7 Level of Service B B B A B Approach Delay (s) 15.4 5.7 10.7 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 521 382 227 1 604 539 250 1 394 2441 470 12 Future Volume (vph) 521 382 227 1 604 539 250 1 394 2441 470 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 566 415 247 1 657 586 272 1 428 2653 511 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 139 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 566 415 163 0 658 586 184 0 429 2653 372 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.7 34.7 34.7 28.8 28.8 28.8 18.8 61.0 61.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.7 34.7 34.7 28.8 28.8 28.8 18.8 61.0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 794 818 353 659 679 303 430 2067 625 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.12 c0.19 0.17 0.12 c0.52 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.12 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.51 0.46 1.00 0.86 0.61 1.00 1.28 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 53.1 50.2 49.6 60.6 58.7 55.4 65.6 44.5 34.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.50 0.19 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.5 1.0 34.4 11.0 3.4 25.5 129.0 1.5 Delay (s) 56.1 50.7 50.6 95.0 69.7 58.8 68.4 151.1 8.1 Level of Service E D D F E E E F A Approach Delay (s) 53.2 78.7 120.9 Approach LOS D E F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 86.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 164 1538 431 Future Volume (vph) 164 1538 431 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 178 1672 468 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 183 Lane Group Flow (vph) 191 1672 285 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 49.7 49.7 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 49.7 49.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 1684 524 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.99 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 71.2 50.0 40.9 Progression Factor 1.26 0.66 0.49 Incremental Delay, d2 98.7 18.7 3.5 Delay (s) 188.4 51.8 23.4 Level of Service F D C Approach Delay (s) 57.3 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 3 327 375 47 1 11 336 436 237 48 55 41 Future Volume (vph) 3 327 375 47 1 11 336 436 237 48 55 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1529 1770 3539 1551 3433 1673 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1529 1770 3539 1551 3433 1673 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 355 408 51 1 12 365 474 258 52 60 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 361 0 32 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 358 408 19 0 13 365 113 258 80 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 11 23 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 2 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 34.1 34.1 0.6 21.9 21.9 19.9 19.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 34.1 34.1 0.6 21.9 21.9 19.9 19.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 479 692 568 11 845 370 745 363 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.22 0.01 0.10 c0.08 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.59 0.03 1.18 0.43 0.31 0.35 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 23.2 18.3 45.6 29.6 28.7 30.4 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 1.3 0.0 338.7 0.4 0.5 1.3 1.4 Delay (s) 44.2 24.5 18.3 384.3 30.0 29.1 31.7 30.9 Level of Service D C B F CCCC Approach Delay (s) 32.7 34.9 31.4 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 91.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 336 43 360 Future Volume (vph) 336 43 360 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1543 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1543 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 365 47 391 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 233 Lane Group Flow (vph) 410 47 158 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16 Turn Type Split NA Perm Protected Phases 6 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.1 19.1 19.1 Effective Green, g (s) 19.1 19.1 19.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 715 388 321 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.12 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 32.6 29.5 32.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.1 1.2 Delay (s) 33.8 29.6 33.2 Level of Service C C C Approach Delay (s) 33.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 684 0 1875 0 2104 0 0 2296 489 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 684 0 1875 0 2104 0 0 2296 489 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 743 0 2038 0 2287 0 0 2496 532 RTOR Reduction (vph)000005000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 743 0 2033 0 2287 0 0 2496 532 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)14 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 80.0 56.5 113.5 150.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 80.0 56.5 113.5 150.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.53 0.38 0.76 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 629 1570 1915 3847 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 c0.45 c0.45 0.49 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.34 v/c Ratio 1.18 1.29 1.19 0.65 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 61.2 35.0 46.8 8.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.08 0.15 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 97.2 137.5 90.1 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 158.5 172.5 140.7 1.5 0.1 Level of Service F F F A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 168.8 140.7 1.2 Approach LOS A F F A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 98.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 443 562 0 2784 2002 0 Future Volume (vph) 443 562 0 2784 2002 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3315 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3315 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 482 611 0 3026 2176 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)880000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 737 340 0 3026 2176 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 7 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.4 39.4 101.6 101.6 Effective Green, g (s) 39.4 39.4 101.6 101.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.68 0.68 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 870 378 3444 3444 v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 c0.60 0.43 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.90 0.88 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 52.4 53.4 19.3 13.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.59 Incremental Delay, d2 7.7 23.2 2.1 0.5 Delay (s) 60.1 76.5 9.4 8.6 Level of Service E E A A Approach Delay (s) 65.3 9.4 8.6 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 244 369 345 397 590 318 12 459 1800 170 57 334 Future Volume (vph) 244 369 345 397 590 318 12 459 1800 170 57 334 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 265 401 375 432 641 346 13 499 1957 185 62 363 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 127 0 48 00004700 Lane Group Flow (vph) 265 401 248 432 939 0 0 512 1957 138 0 425 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 24 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 36.3 36.3 21.7 37.5 20.5 56.5 56.5 17.5 Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 36.3 36.3 21.7 37.5 20.5 56.5 56.5 17.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.25 0.14 0.38 0.38 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 856 365 496 824 469 1915 596 400 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.11 0.13 c0.28 c0.15 c0.38 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.09 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.47 0.68 0.87 1.14 1.09 1.02 0.23 1.06 Uniform Delay, d1 64.8 48.6 51.6 62.8 56.2 64.8 46.8 31.9 66.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 Incremental Delay, d2 87.2 0.4 5.0 15.3 77.3 68.7 26.3 0.9 41.4 Delay (s) 151.9 49.0 56.5 78.1 133.5 133.5 73.1 32.8 85.9 Level of Service F D E E F F E C F Approach Delay (s) 77.9 116.7 81.9 Approach LOS E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 83.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 09/07/2017 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1722 211 Future Volume (vph) 1722 211 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1872 229 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 88 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1872 141 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 53.5 53.5 Effective Green, g (s) 53.5 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1813 543 v/s Ratio Prot 0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 48.2 34.2 Progression Factor 0.98 1.39 Incremental Delay, d2 20.4 0.3 Delay (s) 67.5 47.9 Level of Service E D Approach Delay (s) 68.9 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 81 154 91 385 98 348 37 94 900 505 28 627 Future Volume (vph) 81 154 91 385 98 348 37 94 900 505 28 627 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3315 1681 1718 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3315 1681 1718 1546 1770 5085 1555 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 167 99 418 107 378 40 102 978 549 30 682 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 35 0 0 0 315 0 0 0 264 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 319 0 259 266 63 0 142 978 285 0 712 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 6 5 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 20.1 20.1 20.1 12.7 29.5 29.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 20.1 20.1 20.1 12.7 29.5 29.5 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 439 281 287 258 187 1250 382 538 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.15 c0.15 0.08 c0.19 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.92 0.93 0.25 0.76 0.78 0.75 1.32 Uniform Delay, d1 50.0 49.2 49.2 43.4 52.2 42.3 41.8 41.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.83 1.13 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 33.6 34.1 0.5 14.8 4.5 11.4 158.1 Delay (s) 55.9 82.8 83.3 43.9 47.8 39.5 58.7 199.9 Level of Service E F F D D D E F Approach Delay (s) 55.9 66.6 46.5 Approach LOS E E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 65.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1729 57 Future Volume (vph) 1729 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5058 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5058 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1879 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1938 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 53.3 Effective Green, g (s) 53.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2246 v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 30.1 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 Delay (s) 34.7 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 79.1 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 3 1160 94 206 704 58 6 55 10 254 34 30 Future Volume (vph) 3 1160 94 206 704 58 6 55 10 254 34 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3491 1770 1863 1583 1756 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.88 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3491 1398 1863 1583 1577 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1261 102 224 765 63 7 60 11 276 37 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)060050000126019 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1357 0 224 823 0 0 67 11 150 0 76 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 36.8 7.6 43.5 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 36.8 7.6 43.5 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.53 0.11 0.63 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 23 1858 194 2194 228 304 258 257 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.39 c0.13 0.24 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.10 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.73 1.15 0.38 0.29 0.04 0.58 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 33.8 12.4 30.8 6.2 25.4 24.4 26.8 25.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 1.5 112.5 0.1 0.7 0.0 3.3 0.6 Delay (s) 36.3 13.9 143.3 6.4 26.2 24.4 30.1 26.1 Level of Service D B F A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 14.0 35.5 29.2 26.1 Approach LOS B D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 23 Future Volume (vph) 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 45 1460 80 150 2067 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 45 1460 80 150 2067 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 49 1587 87 163 2247 Pedestrians 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 929 pX, platoon unblocked 0.73 0.87 0.87 vC, conflicting volume 2710 576 1678 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 899 15 1274 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 65 cM capacity (veh/h) 133 924 471 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 49 635 635 404 163 749 749 749 Volume Left 0000163000 Volume Right 49 0 0 87 0000 cSH 924 1700 1700 1700 471 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.24 0.35 0.44 0.44 0.44 Queue Length 95th (ft)400038000 Control Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 1.1 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 133 6 45 320 357 25 Future Volume (vph) 63 133 6 45 320 357 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3499 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3499 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 145 7 49 348 388 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 123 00080 Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 22 0 56 348 407 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 5.3 5.8 20.2 9.9 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 5.3 5.8 20.2 9.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.59 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 271 239 297 2072 1004 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.03 c0.10 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.41 Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 12.5 12.3 3.3 9.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 Delay (s) 13.3 12.7 12.6 3.3 10.2 Level of Service B B B A B Approach Delay (s) 12.9 4.6 10.2 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 331 545 357 281 103 32 168 1240 489 10 87 1685 Future Volume (vph) 331 545 357 281 103 32 168 1240 489 10 87 1685 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1534 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1552 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 360 592 388 305 112 35 183 1348 532 11 95 1832 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 98 0 0 30 0 0 228 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 360 592 290 305 112 5 183 1348 304 0 106 1832 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 7 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.1 33.1 33.1 15.6 15.6 15.6 7.5 46.0 46.0 7.3 45.8 Effective Green, g (s) 33.1 33.1 33.1 15.6 15.6 15.6 7.5 46.0 46.0 7.3 45.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 946 976 423 446 460 205 214 1949 594 208 1940 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.17 c0.09 0.03 0.05 c0.27 0.03 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.00 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.61 0.68 0.68 0.24 0.02 0.86 0.69 0.51 0.51 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 37.8 38.8 49.8 46.9 45.5 55.7 31.0 28.4 54.6 35.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.85 1.42 1.00 1.46 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.1 4.5 4.3 0.3 0.0 21.3 1.5 2.4 1.7 9.9 Delay (s) 35.4 38.9 43.3 54.1 47.2 45.6 67.8 27.8 42.8 56.2 62.4 Level of Service DDDDDDECD EE Approach Delay (s) 39.2 51.8 35.2 61.4 Approach LOS D D D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 222 Future Volume (vph) 222 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 241 RTOR Reduction (vph) 96 Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.8 Effective Green, g (s) 45.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 604 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 Progression Factor 2.19 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 Delay (s) 56.1 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 204 324 40 7 110 214 18 6 7 12 185 22 Future Volume (vph) 204 324 40 7 110 214 18 6 7 12 185 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1684 3433 1863 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1550 1770 3539 1557 3433 1684 3433 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 222 352 43 8 120 233 20 7 8 13 201 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 30 0 0 190 060000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 222 352 13 8 120 43 20 9 0 0 214 24 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Split NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 22.3 22.3 0.6 13.2 13.2 19.8 19.8 10.5 10.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 22.3 22.3 0.6 13.2 13.2 19.8 19.8 10.5 10.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 467 583 485 14 656 288 954 468 506 274 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.19 0.00 0.03 c0.01 0.01 c0.06 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.60 0.03 0.57 0.18 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.42 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 20.7 16.9 35.2 24.5 24.3 18.7 18.7 27.6 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.8 0.0 46.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 29.2 22.5 17.0 81.1 24.6 24.5 18.7 18.7 28.2 26.4 Level of Service C C B F C C B B C C Approach Delay (s) 24.5 25.8 18.7 27.4 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.2 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 232 Future Volume (vph) 232 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1562 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1562 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 252 RTOR Reduction (vph) 215 Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 26.8 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 660 0 983 0 1229 0 0 2427 402 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 660 0 983 0 1229 0 0 2427 402 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 717 0 1068 0 1336 0 0 2638 437 RTOR Reduction (vph)000007000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 717 0 1061 0 1336 0 0 2638 437 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 29.4 61.9 44.6 81.6 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 29.4 61.9 44.6 81.6 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.52 0.37 0.68 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 841 1542 1889 3457 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.19 0.26 c0.52 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.69 0.71 0.76 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 43.2 21.8 32.1 12.8 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.27 0.32 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.4 1.3 1.9 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 51.6 23.1 42.8 4.2 0.0 Level of Service D C D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 34.5 42.8 3.6 Approach LOS A C D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 284 210 0 2129 1821 0 Future Volume (vph) 284 210 0 2129 1821 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3385 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3385 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 309 228 0 2314 1979 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 17 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 353 152 0 2314 1979 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 8 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.8 18.8 92.2 92.2 Effective Green, g (s) 18.8 18.8 92.2 92.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.77 0.77 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 530 225 3906 3906 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.46 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.68 0.59 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 47.7 5.9 5.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.41 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 7.8 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 50.8 55.5 3.7 2.5 Level of Service D E A A Approach Delay (s) 52.3 3.7 2.5 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 307 622 324 245 288 179 1 336 1454 176 11 Future Volume (vph) 1 307 622 324 245 288 179 1 336 1454 176 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3273 3433 5085 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1526 3433 3273 3433 5085 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 334 676 352 266 313 195 1 365 1580 191 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 98 0 88 0000850 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 335 676 254 266 420 0 0 366 1580 106 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 30 1 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 33.8 33.8 11.6 21.3 14.5 45.3 45.3 Effective Green, g (s) 24.1 33.8 33.8 11.6 21.3 14.5 45.3 45.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 355 996 429 331 580 414 1919 590 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.19 0.08 0.13 c0.11 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.68 0.59 0.80 0.72 0.88 0.82 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 47.3 38.3 37.2 53.1 46.6 51.9 33.7 24.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.2 1.9 2.2 13.2 4.5 19.5 4.2 0.7 Delay (s) 80.5 40.1 39.4 66.3 51.0 71.4 37.9 25.6 Level of Service F D D E D E D C Approach Delay (s) 49.9 56.3 42.5 Approach LOS D E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_AM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 229 1307 143 Future Volume (vph) 229 1307 143 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1556 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 249 1421 155 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 89 Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 1421 66 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 42.1 42.1 Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 323 1783 545 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.80 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 53.3 35.1 26.4 Progression Factor 0.89 0.87 1.30 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 3.0 0.4 Delay (s) 58.6 33.4 34.7 Level of Service E C C Approach Delay (s) 37.1 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 120 135 92 593 198 563 124 282 2286 451 30 400 Future Volume (vph) 120 135 92 593 198 563 124 282 2286 451 30 400 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3316 1681 1726 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3316 1681 1726 1483 1770 5085 1545 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 130 147 100 645 215 612 135 307 2485 490 33 435 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 215 0 0 0 142 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 352 0 426 434 397 0 442 2485 348 0 468 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 21 8 Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.8 29.7 29.7 29.7 25.5 57.0 57.0 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.8 29.7 29.7 29.7 25.5 57.0 57.0 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.38 0.38 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 393 332 341 293 300 1932 587 324 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.25 0.25 0.25 c0.49 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.90 1.28 1.27 1.36 1.47 1.29 0.59 1.44 Uniform Delay, d1 65.2 60.1 60.1 60.1 62.2 46.5 37.2 61.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.45 0.44 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.2 148.5 143.8 180.6 214.7 129.2 0.4 216.7 Delay (s) 87.3 208.6 203.9 240.7 286.3 150.0 16.8 277.9 Level of Service F F F F F F B F Approach Delay (s) 87.3 220.6 148.5 Approach LOS F F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 144.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 130.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: El Camino Real & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 2 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1483 131 Future Volume (vph) 1483 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5015 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5015 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1612 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1747 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 59.0 Effective Green, g (s) 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1972 v/s Ratio Prot 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.89 Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 Delay (s) 48.7 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 97.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 8 844 97 454 1043 99 8 198 55 553 22 10 Future Volume (vph) 8 844 97 454 1043 99 8 198 55 553 22 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3480 1770 3481 1770 1863 1583 1708 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3480 1770 3481 1437 1863 1583 1569 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 917 105 493 1134 108 9 215 60 601 24 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)090060000238021 Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 1013 0 493 1236 0 0 224 60 363 0 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 8 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 34.5 17.9 51.5 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 34.5 17.9 51.5 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.39 0.20 0.57 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 17 1339 353 2000 380 492 418 415 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.29 c0.28 0.35 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 c0.23 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.76 1.40 0.62 0.59 0.12 0.87 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 44.1 23.9 35.8 12.6 28.7 25.0 31.5 24.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 26.7 2.5 194.9 0.6 2.3 0.1 17.2 0.1 Delay (s) 70.8 26.4 230.8 13.1 31.0 25.2 48.7 25.0 Level of Service E C F B C C D C Approach Delay (s) 26.8 75.0 42.6 25.0 Approach LOS C E D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Huntington & Spruce 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 4 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 26 Future Volume (vph) 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Noor & El Camino Real 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 102 3010 183 7 125 2096 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 102 3010 183 7 125 2096 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 111 3272 199 0 136 2278 Pedestrians 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 Percent Blockage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 658 928 pX, platoon unblocked 0.54 0.39 0.00 0.39 vC, conflicting volume 4412 1199 0 3480 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 617 0 0 1911 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 0.0 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 0.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 0 74 0 0 cM capacity (veh/h) 0 424 0 120 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 111 1309 1309 853 136 759 759 759 Volume Left 0000136000 Volume Right 111 0 0 199 0000 cSH 424 1700 1700 1700 120 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.77 0.77 0.50 1.14 0.45 0.45 0.45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 0 0 0 206 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 193.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C F Approach Delay (s) 16.5 0.0 10.9 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Huntington & Noor 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 157 148 28 79 681 606 53 Future Volume (vph) 157 148 28 79 681 606 53 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3489 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1561 1770 3539 3489 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 171 161 30 86 740 659 58 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 125 00090 Lane Group Flow (vph) 171 36 0 116 740 708 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5526 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 10.1 5.6 26.2 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.1 10.1 5.6 26.2 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.58 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 394 348 218 2046 1240 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.07 0.21 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.10 0.53 0.36 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 15.1 14.0 18.6 5.1 11.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.6 Delay (s) 15.9 14.1 21.1 5.2 12.4 Level of Service B B C A B Approach Delay (s) 15.0 7.4 12.4 Approach LOS B A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.3 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 521 382 227 1 652 539 250 1 394 2486 515 12 Future Volume (vph) 521 382 227 1 652 539 250 1 394 2486 515 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1526 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1538 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 566 415 247 1 709 586 272 1 428 2702 560 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 149 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 566 415 163 0 710 586 184 0 429 2702 411 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 8 5 5 2 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.7 34.7 34.7 28.3 28.3 28.3 19.4 62.5 62.5 Effective Green, g (s) 34.7 34.7 34.7 28.3 28.3 28.3 19.4 62.5 62.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 794 818 353 647 667 298 444 2118 640 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.12 c0.21 0.17 0.12 c0.53 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.12 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.51 0.46 1.10 0.88 0.62 0.97 1.28 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 53.1 50.2 49.6 60.9 59.2 55.9 65.0 43.8 34.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.52 0.19 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.5 1.0 65.0 12.6 3.8 16.5 125.3 1.6 Delay (s) 56.1 50.7 50.6 125.8 71.7 59.6 60.5 148.3 8.1 Level of Service E D D F E E E F A Approach Delay (s) 53.2 94.1 116.8 Approach LOS D F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 90.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: El Camino Real & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 8 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 164 1538 431 Future Volume (vph) 164 1538 431 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 178 1672 468 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 183 Lane Group Flow (vph) 191 1672 285 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Turn Type Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 49.6 49.6 Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 49.6 49.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 148 1681 523 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 v/c Ratio 1.29 0.99 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 71.8 50.1 41.0 Progression Factor 1.25 0.70 0.60 Incremental Delay, d2 167.1 19.1 3.5 Delay (s) 257.0 54.3 28.1 Level of Service F D C Approach Delay (s) 65.6 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 9 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 3 372 375 47 1 11 336 442 237 48 55 41 Future Volume (vph) 3 372 375 47 1 11 336 442 237 48 55 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1529 1770 3539 1551 3433 1673 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1529 1770 3539 1551 3433 1673 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 404 408 51 1 12 365 480 258 52 60 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 367 0 32 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 407 408 19 0 13 365 113 258 80 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 11 23 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Split NA Split Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 2 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 34.2 34.2 0.6 22.0 22.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 34.2 34.2 0.6 22.0 22.0 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 471 684 561 11 836 366 737 359 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.22 0.01 0.10 c0.08 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.60 0.03 1.18 0.44 0.31 0.35 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 39.3 23.9 18.9 46.2 30.3 29.3 31.0 30.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.1 1.4 0.0 338.7 0.4 0.5 1.3 1.4 Delay (s) 54.4 25.3 18.9 385.0 30.6 29.8 32.3 31.6 Level of Service D C B F CCCC Approach Delay (s) 38.6 35.5 32.1 Approach LOS D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.1 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BART Station Drwy/Huntington & Sneath 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 10 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 339 43 408 Future Volume (vph) 339 43 408 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 1543 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1543 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 368 47 443 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 230 Lane Group Flow (vph) 413 47 213 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 16 Turn Type Split NA Perm Protected Phases 6 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.3 20.3 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 20.3 20.3 20.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 748 406 336 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.12 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 32.4 29.2 33.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.1 3.9 Delay (s) 33.2 29.3 36.9 Level of Service C C D Approach Delay (s) 34.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Camino Real & I-380 WB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 684 0 1917 0 2152 0 0 2325 508 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 684 0 1917 0 2152 0 0 2325 508 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 2787 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 743 0 2084 0 2339 0 0 2527 552 RTOR Reduction (vph)000005000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 743 0 2079 0 2339 0 0 2527 552 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)14 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Free Protected Phases 8 6 2 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 29.5 80.0 56.5 111.5 150.0 Effective Green, g (s) 29.5 80.0 56.5 111.5 150.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.53 0.38 0.74 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 675 1570 1915 3779 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 c0.45 c0.46 0.50 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 0.35 v/c Ratio 1.10 1.32 1.22 0.67 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 60.2 35.0 46.8 9.8 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.16 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 65.5 150.4 101.9 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 125.7 185.4 152.8 1.6 0.1 Level of Service F F F A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 169.7 152.8 1.3 Approach LOS A F F A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 102.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Camino Real & I-380 EB Ramps 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 12 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 479 562 0 2796 2009 0 Future Volume (vph) 479 562 0 2796 2009 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3325 1441 5085 5085 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3325 1441 5085 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 521 611 0 3039 2184 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)880000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 764 352 0 3039 2184 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 7 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.1 40.1 100.9 100.9 Effective Green, g (s) 40.1 40.1 100.9 100.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.67 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 888 385 3420 3420 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.60 0.43 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.91 0.89 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 52.3 53.3 20.0 14.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.59 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 25.6 2.3 0.6 Delay (s) 60.8 78.9 9.9 8.8 Level of Service E E A A Approach Delay (s) 66.6 9.9 8.8 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 244 369 345 397 590 318 12 459 1812 170 57 334 Future Volume (vph) 244 369 345 397 590 318 12 459 1812 170 57 334 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1509 3433 3296 3433 5085 1583 3433 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 265 401 375 432 641 346 13 499 1970 185 62 363 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 127 0 48 00004700 Lane Group Flow (vph) 265 401 248 432 939 0 0 512 1970 138 0 425 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 24 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 36.3 36.3 21.7 37.5 20.5 56.4 56.4 17.6 Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 36.3 36.3 21.7 37.5 20.5 56.4 56.4 17.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.25 0.14 0.38 0.38 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 856 365 496 824 469 1911 595 402 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.11 0.13 c0.28 c0.15 c0.39 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.09 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.47 0.68 0.87 1.14 1.09 1.03 0.23 1.06 Uniform Delay, d1 64.8 48.6 51.6 62.8 56.2 64.8 46.8 32.0 66.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 Incremental Delay, d2 87.2 0.4 5.0 15.3 77.3 68.7 29.0 0.9 39.2 Delay (s) 151.9 49.0 56.5 78.1 133.5 133.5 75.8 32.9 83.9 Level of Service F D E E F F E C F Approach Delay (s) 77.9 116.7 83.9 Approach LOS E F F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 84.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: El Camino Real & San Bruno Ave 02/23/2018 410 Noor Avenue 5:00 pm 06/16/2017 Cumulative+Project_PM Synchro 9 Report Hexagon-TD Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1729 211 Future Volume (vph) 1729 211 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1524 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1524 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1879 229 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 88 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1879 141 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 53.5 53.5 Effective Green, g (s) 53.5 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1813 543 v/s Ratio Prot 0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 1.04 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 48.2 34.2 Progression Factor 0.98 1.39 Incremental Delay, d2 21.7 0.3 Delay (s) 68.9 47.9 Level of Service E D Approach Delay (s) 69.5 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary